Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
8:10 pm

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendment No. 56:

Page 12, line 6, leave out ("party registered under this Part") and insert ("qualifying registered party").

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

We now return to a group of amendments relating to the separate registration of political parties in Northern Ireland, which we considered at some length on 11th May. The mood of the Committee on that occasion was that these important amendments were deserving of a further airing before the question was put.

As I explained to the Committee on 11th May, this group of amendments is concerned with two issues: first, what constitutes a Northern Ireland party for the purpose of Clause 65. The second issue is what I shall refer to as the "Scottish Green Party" question. For the time being I shall put the second of these issues to one side and concentrate on the Northern Ireland aspects of the amendments. It is fair to say that it was these aspects which caused the Committee most difficulties when we last considered these matters. I shall also put the detail of the amendments to one side while I address the key question of why we should make special provision for Northern Ireland.

This Bill extends throughout the United Kingdom. In an ideal world, therefore, we would not need to make special provision for Northern Ireland parties. However, like it or not, we must recognise, as the Neill committee recognised, that politics in Northern Ireland is not yet conducted on quite the same basis as it is in Great Britain. Political developments in Northern Ireland have undoubtedly taken an important step forward since the Neill committee report was published, but there remain special factors which cannot be lightly dismissed.

Thankfully, the level of political violence in Northern Ireland has greatly diminished since the onset of the peace process, but, as we see from time to time, it has not yet been wholly eradicated. The Neill committee heard evidence that, notwithstanding the Good Friday agreement, it would still be unsafe in Northern Ireland to disclose the names of those who had made gifts to a particular political party there. There is a very real risk, therefore, that if donations made to parties in Northern Ireland were subject to disclosure in the normal way, there would be one of two possible consequences. The first is that donors would suffer discrimination, intimidation or worse. The second and perhaps more likely consequence is that people would simply refuse to give to a political party for fear of the consequences to them personally if the fact of the donation was made known.

It was these considerations which led the Neill committee to conclude that there should be a temporary exemption from the reporting requirements for donations made to political parties in Northern Ireland.

The Neill committee separately considered the effect of the ban on foreign funding on parties in Northern Ireland. Here they concluded that the terms of the Good Friday agreement argued for an exception to be made to the definition of a permissible donor in order to allow a citizen of the Republic of Ireland to make a donation to a Northern Ireland political party, provided that the donor complied with the provisions of the Republic of Ireland's Electoral Act 1997.

The Government have accepted in relation to both these recommendations that the case has been made for exempting political parties in Northern Ireland from the application of the relevant provision of Part IV of the Bill on a temporary basis. Clause 65 is the result.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, George Howarth, met with representatives of the main Northern Ireland parties earlier this year. Although opinions were divided, there was a strongly held view in some quarters that exemptions from the disclosure requirements of Part IV remain essential. Given this view, it remains the Government's current intention to exercise the order making power in Clause 65 so as to disapply the provisions of Part IV in respect of Northern Ireland parties. Amendment No. 177A to Clause 65 and the corresponding Amendment No. 189C to Schedule 6 would make it explicitly clear that an order can be made exempting Northern Ireland parties, wholly or in any specified particular, from the provisions of Part IV.

It is intended that any order made under this clause should apply for an initial period of four years only and be reviewed thereafter. We shall, however, review the position afresh before a final decision is taken early next year on the commencement of these provisions.

In disapplying Part IV as a whole in respect of Northern Ireland parties, I make no bones about the fact that we are not following the letter of the Neill committee recommendation 29. We have considered the recommendation very carefully but have reluctantly concluded that an extension of the definition of a permissible donor along the lines proposed--that is, to include citizens of the Republic of Ireland resident in the republic--is impractical.

The Neill committee recognised that under its formula there would exist the possibility of overseas donations--for example, from the United States--reaching the Republic of Ireland, where there is no ban on foreign funding, and then being re-routed to the north by an individual or via one of the parties' offices in Dublin. The Committee fully acknowledged that it had not been able to devise anything that would prevent this, other than statutory provisions which would arguably be incompatible with the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday agreement.

In these circumstances, extending the definition of a permissible source in the manner proposed by the Neill committee would, in practice, leave a Northern Ireland party free to accept donations from any source. We believe it preferable simply to acknowledge this fact and to legislate accordingly.

Having concluded that the Neill committee was right to recommend special provisions for Northern Ireland parties, we need to define what constitutes a Northern Ireland party for these purposes. Clause 65(2) currently defines a Northern Ireland party as a party with one or more Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, or a party with one or more Members of the House of Commons elected for constituencies in Northern Ireland.

This definition has been called into question by the Neill committee. In its comments on the draft Bill the committee raised two concerns. First, the existing definition implies that a political party which, for example, achieves only one seat in an election and loses it in the next will, in losing that seat, lose the Clause 65 protection. The second concern was that the definition placed those parties which have, so far, unsuccessfully fielded candidates at elections in Northern Ireland at a disadvantage. We fully accept these points.

We have to be fair to all Northern Ireland parties and treat them equally. Consequently we must come up with a new definition of a Northern Ireland party. I put it to the Committee that the only equitable definition is one that embraces all parties which contest elections in Northern Ireland. This leads us inexorably to a separate register of Northern Ireland parties, and hence to this group of amendments.

The new clause to be inserted by Amendment No. 63 provides for the existing register of political parties to be replaced by two new registers--namely, the Great Britain register and the Northern Ireland register. Later on in the Committee stage proceedings we will come to government amendments which set out the transitional arrangements for existing registered parties. Under those arrangements a party will need to decide whether it wishes to be registered in the Great Britain register, in the Northern Ireland register, or in both. I recognise that these provisions will impose a rather uncomfortable set of arrangements on parties that organise throughout the United Kingdom. In particular, any such party will need to ensure that the financial affairs of the party in Great Britain are conducted separately from those of the party in Northern Ireland. Such a separation will not be welcome but it is a necessary and unavoidable consequence of making special provision for Northern Ireland parties. Without such separation it would be open to a party operating on a UK-wide basis to escape the ban on foreign funding by channelling donations through its Northern Ireland branches.

It has been suggested that the proposed exemption for Northern Ireland parties is nothing more than a sop to Sinn Fein. That is quite simply false. In fact, Sinn Fein has indicated that it supports the disclosure of donations. The truth of the matter can be found in the oral evidence given to the Neill committee. During the committee's hearings in Belfast, John Stephenson of the SDLP said at paragraph 6548 of Volume 2 of the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom:

"You should be aware that already many potential donors to political parties here do not donate due to fear. Even with the huge endorsement ... of the Good Friday Agreement, the problem with public declaration will still exist".

Such sentiments were not confined to the nationalist community. This is what Jack Allen of the Ulster Unionist Council had to say (at paragraphs 6667 and 6717):

"Over a number of years, because of the political situation in Northern Ireland, people did not want to be identified with political parties ... because of the risk factor in Northern Ireland ... We are happy enough to put forward those people who give us donations of £5,000 or more but it would be important for them that it was kept private or confidential to an electoral committee or something like that, rather than be made public in the press".

This view was reinforced by Lynn Sheridan, speaking for the United Kingdom Unionist Party. In her evidence to the Neill committee she said (at paragraph 6848):

"On the security issue, when someone was having to declare a donor and the amount, there would be problems in Northern Ireland in that people would not want to be seen".

Nor is it the case that only Sinn Fein has benefited from funding from abroad and, in particular, from the United States. Perhaps I may again quote from the evidence given on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Council, this time by the late Josias Cunningham, who said (at paragraph 6676):

"Taking the American example again, we have several well-heeled sympathisers. It would be very embarrassing if one of them said, 'I would like to support your election campaign or party machine generally. Here is a cheque for $10,000'. And we had to say, 'Sorry. We're not allowed to accept it'".

I hope that the Committee will accept, having heard these extracts from the evidence given to the Neill committee, that there is no republican agenda here. What we are concerned about is the personal safety of the people of Northern Ireland who want to support democratic politics by contributing to the party of their choice. We all dearly hope that in a few years' time we shall not need to repeat this debate. But until the supporters of political parties in Northern Ireland have nothing more to fear from the appearance of their name on a list of donors than the knockabout jibes and groans that one might receive in Great Britain, I urge the Committee to back these amendments and to support Clause 65 standing part of the Bill.

I said that I would move on from Northern Ireland parties and discuss briefly with the Committee the position of the Scottish Green Party--perhaps henceforth to be known as the "Scottish Green Party question". The Scottish Green Party is aggrieved, we believe justifiably, that under the terms of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 and the associated subordinate legislation it has been prevented registering as a political party. The Scottish Green Party is a quite separate political party from the Green Party in England and Wales. There are, no doubt, some fraternal links between the two parties but there are no constitutional links between them as is the case between, for example, the Scottish Liberal Democrats and the English Liberal Democrats.

For the limited purposes of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, the Scottish Green Party has come to a pragmatic accommodation with the Green Party in order that Scottish Green Party candidates can stand for election in Scotland under the Scottish Green Party banner. These arrangements will not, however, withstand the onset of the controls on parties' income and expenditure. We must, therefore, find an alternative solution.

The approach we have adopted, in Amendment No. 77, is to enable a party registered in the Great Britain register to confine its registration to one or two parts of Great Britain. Thus, it would be open to the Green Party to limit its registration in England and Wales. This would then allow the Scottish Green Party to register in respect of Scotland. This aspect of these amendments was, I believe, welcomed by the Committee when they were discussed on 11th May.

The amendments also touch on the registration of minor parties. A minor party is a party that contests only parish council elections in England or community council elections in Wales. Clause 36(2) already provides that the controls in Parts III and IV do not apply to minor parties, but this provision does not quite go far enough in disapplying provisions of the Bill in respect of such parties. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, argued persuasively on 11th May that we should go even further by not applying the restrictions on candidates' descriptions to minor parties. The noble Lord argued his point well and it is one that we are ready to accept.

Finally, I turn to the amendments to government amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. These are quite simply wrecking amendments. They seek to undo the two main changes to the registration scheme that I have set out. The noble Lord's amendments would preserve a UK-wide register with UK-wide registration. I am surprised that the noble Lord is seeking to undo the changes to the scheme which will facilitate the registration of the Scottish Green Party. Perhaps that is not his intention, but that is certainly what would come about. In Committee on 11th May, the noble Lord said (at col. 1814) that he was "pleased to hear" that the government amendments resolved this problem. I suspect that he has not changed his view, but that would be the effect of his amendments.

I welcome this opportunity to debate this group of amendments again. It is important that the Committee is clear about their purpose and effect. Since we last considered these issues, events have moved on in Northern Ireland. The system of devolved government has been restored. That is very much to be welcomed, but it does not, of itself, remove the need for special provisions for Northern Ireland parties. We need to ensure that those special provisions work effectively, and to that end I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

Lord Goodhart (Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he accept that there is a significant difference here; namely, that if there was a suspicion--perhaps a well-founded suspicion--that he was accepting donations in this country from supporters in the US, it would be possible for the authorities in this country to get the police to investigate such an allegation? The problem in the Republic of Ireland would be that the only authorities which could investigate such a matter would be the Garda and that might prove to be a less effective form of investigation.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

As I understand the Republic of Ireland to be a friendly country, I do not see why it would be so difficult for an investigation to be undertaken. If there was doubt, and even if it could not be proved, it seems to me that the electoral commission could instruct the political party not to take the donation unless it could prove to the commission that it was a genuine donation from, for example, myself and not money that I had received from someone else. I do not accept that there is not a way round the problem. It is a good deal less damaging to the principle than the way that the Government have chosen, which is to exempt Northern Irish parties.

The noble Lord implied that other parties in Northern Ireland were keen on the measure. I am not entirely sure how up to date he is because I have a letter of 13th October 1999 addressed to Mr Varney, the head of the Party Funding Unit at the Home Office. The letter is from David Boyd, the General Secretary of the Ulster Unionist Council. The letter states, with regard to overseas donations:

"We are disappointed that the proposals for restrictions on donations from overseas differ in Northern Ireland from Great Britain. This is the one area in which legislation for Northern Ireland should be at least as strong as that in Great Britain. We recognise that certain highly publicised cases have led to the proposal to prohibit overseas funding to England, Scotland and Wales. However, we question the lack of balance which offers an exemption to Northern Ireland parties when the consequences of that exemption could have connotations beyond democratic politics. It is wrong that the practice will constitute a criminal offence in Britain when the same practice will allow the Republican Movement (IRA/Sinn Fein) to raise funds. It is not acceptable to argue that Northern Ireland must be treated differently because Sinn Fein are organised on an all-island basis. The same law should apply to all parties, which stand for election in the United Kingdom".

Therefore, the Government cannot pray in aid the Ulster Unionist Party, which is the largest party on the loyalist side of the divide in Northern Ireland.

Everyone knows what the measure seeks to do; namely, to allow Sinn Fein/IRA to continue to obtain large amounts of money from the United States. We know that it obtains that money because the political parties in Ireland must reveal large donations. The Irish Times of 17th May reveals the donations that emanate from the United States. Fianna Fail seems to do rather well in terms of donations from the United States. The Labour Party, the Green Party and Fine Gael do not do at all well; they score "blanks" in terms of declarable donations. However, Sinn Fein does extraordinarily well. Of the three declarations, two are from overseas, one from the United States and the other from Australia.

On the previous occasion we discussed the matter, the Minister failed to address the distinction that is being made here between Northern Ireland and Scotland and Wales. I shall mention Scotland, but exactly the same is true of Wales. However, to avoid repeating myself, I shall encapsulate them both.

In Ireland some people think that the status of Northern Ireland should be changed and that Northern Ireland should be part of the Republic. Some people in Scotland--I am not one of them--believe that the status of Scotland should be changed and that Scotland should become an independent country separate from the United Kingdom. I suspect that that belief is more prevalent today than it was two or three years ago, but that is a discussion for another day. In Scotland, the Scottish National Party advocates that policy at the ballot box and has done so for many years. While the odd nut at the edge of the nationalist movement has indulged in a little violence, the Scottish National Party itself has never been related to, connected with, or in any way supported violence.

In the Republic of Ireland the main party advocating a link up with the South has, as we all know, close links with violence. Much of the money which has come from America may have contributed to political party funding but has also contributed to the funding of arms. We all know that is the case and there is no point in pretending otherwise. All of a sudden, the Scottish National Party will not be able to obtain money from abroad. If an American citizen of Scottish descent becomes besotted with the "old country" and thinks that we all want independence and decides to give some of his money to the Scottish National Party, he will not be allowed to do that. However, his Irish American neighbour will be allowed to do that. I just do not understand the fairness of that proposition. It is not at all fair; in fact, it constitutes a reward for violence and a penalty for being non-violent. That cannot be right. That is the situation that the Minister will achieve. I understand that he is doing so with good intent but that is what he will achieve. He really ought to rethink this whole proposition with regard to excluding the parties we are discussing.

These amendments make Northern Ireland look quite separate from the rest of the United Kingdom by setting up a separate register. I do not know what kind of signal the noble Lord thinks that gives to the unionist community. Goodness knows, the signals it gets are all negative; hence the problems that David Trimble is experiencing. This is yet another negative signal. I strongly urge the Minister to think carefully before pursuing the measure. Even if the measure is passed, I hope that the Government will think carefully before they decide to implement it. If they say that they have not decided whether to implement the provision, but they will decide next year, is there anything in the Bill which would then remove the clauses we are discussing automatically to prevent them lingering on in the statute book? I believe that the Minister said that the Government hoped not to use the measure for more than four years. Is there a sunset clause with regard to the proposition so that at the end of four years it falls? Some such measure would certainly go some way to help to allay the fears of many of us that this is but another piece of appeasement to one particular party which, I regret to say, is bringing the peace process into severe difficulty at the present time. As I say, the Government should think carefully about this matter.

I shall leave the minor parties point until later as I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will explain far better than I the defects of the Government's proposals in that regard.

Lord Goodhart (Liberal Democrat)

There seems to be a rather surprising lack of enthusiasm from other speakers in this debate. I had intended to speak a little later but there appears to be a pause and therefore I shall speak now.

I should make clear my position. As I think most Members of the Committee know, I am a member of the Neill committee and was a member of that committee at the time it prepared its fifth report on party political funding. I do not speak from my party's Front Bench on this occasion as I have taken the view that I cannot speak or vote against proposals that were contained in the Neill committee report even if my party takes a different view--as it does on a number of issues, although not, I think, on this one. I am mainly concerned here with the position of the Neill committee.

I can certify a number of matters. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that we have too much tacked together in this group of amendments. The question of the Scottish Green Party should present no difficulties. On the question of the minor parties, I am encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said but it is a matter which can better be discussed on later amendments which stand in my name.

The real question relates to Northern Ireland: the reporting of donations, and who is a permissible donor. At the centre of the group of amendments is Clause 65, which is intended to provide exemption from disclosure requirements and enable the Government to extend the list of permissible donors.

As regards the disclosure requirement, I believe that there is an overwhelming case for allowing an exemption from that for a limited period of time. The Government having said that they intended their regulations to continue only for a period of four years, I ask them to consider providing in the Bill that any regulations made under Clause 65 would require renewal at intervals of not more than four years so that they could be reconsidered within the normal life of each parliament.

When the Neill committee went to Belfast and talked to representatives of most of the Irish parties, although neither Sinn Fein nor the DUP, the overwhelming evidence--it was not quite unanimous--was that there was a strong case on personal security grounds for non-disclosure of substantial gifts. Also, businesses which in this country might wish to make substantial donations to a political party would find it impossible to do so in Northern Ireland because making a donation might alienate their customers or clients.

I welcome the Government's proposal to extend the application of the special rules from those parties which are represented either in the assembly or in the UK Parliament to all parties putting forward candidates. That is necessary. There is an absolute case for equal treatment. However, the nub of the question is the extension of the list of permissible donors to enable donations to Northern Ireland parties to be made from parties in countries other than the United Kingdom.

The Neill committee came to the conclusion that there was a strong case for extending to citizens of the Republic of Ireland the right to give donations. As were virtually all the recommendations of the Neill Committee, this was a unanimous recommendation which was endorsed by the right honourable friend of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, Mr John MacGregor. It seemed to us that the citizens of the Republic have a genuine and legitimate interest in the political situation in Northern Ireland. After all, some 40 per cent of voters in Northern Ireland vote for parties which seek the reunification of the North and South. Many of those 40 per cent are citizens of Ireland as well as of the United Kingdom. In this country, John Major, for example, recognised that, if a majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland were to vote in a referendum for reunification, that would occur.

The situation in Scotland is entirely different. There is no proposal by the Scottish National Party that Scotland should become part of some other country. Those members of the Scottish diaspora who live in the USA and, because of their emotional and historic links with Scotland, wish to donate to the Scottish National Party seem to us to have no more justification to give to that party than they would have to give to one of the three main parties of Great Britain. We took the view, which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, did not argue strongly against, that citizens of the Republic should be entitled to make donations to parties in Northern Ireland. We have to recognise that there are exceptional links between Northern Ireland and the South. For example, the Good Friday agreement provides for cross-border bodies.

The question is whether the definition of permissible donors should be extended to include citizens of the Republic of Ireland, as the Neill committee proposed, knowing that that would open a loophole for donations from the USA which could be laundered through friendly members of political parties in the South, or whether, as the Government propose, the ban on foreign donors should be lifted altogether.

The Government have taken a different view from the Neill committee and it is not for me to say that they are right to do so, but their proposals are nearer to the Neill committee's than are the Conservative amendments, which would simply apply to Northern Ireland the same rules as apply to the rest of the United Kingdom, making donations from the Republic of Ireland illegal on the grounds that citizens of the Republic were impermissible donors.

I am not entirely happy with the Government's proposals, but they are more acceptable than those in the Conservative amendments. There is no amendment that proposes a return to the original Neill committee proposals.

That is all that I feel able to say on the issue.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask him a question. I have listened to him with interest and I agree with a lot of what he has said, but I think that he dismissed the Scottish diaspora too briefly, comparing them with the citizens of the Republic. He should address the issue of two next door neighbours in America, one a member of the Scottish diaspora and the other a member of the Irish diaspora. Why should one be allowed to donate to a political party back in the old country while the other is not?

Lord Goodhart (Liberal Democrat)

That is a fair question. In principle, I would not wish members of either diaspora to be able to contribute. The problem is that a ban on donations from the Irish diaspora could be achieved only by making any contributions from the Republic of Ireland impermissible. As well as being difficult to achieve in practice, that would be wrong.

There is no equivalent problem with the Scottish diaspora. Perhaps that is the misfortune of the Scottish National Party. I accept that the SNP may well feel aggrieved that a party that has been as closely linked with violence as Sinn Fein can profit from the Irish diaspora when the SNP cannot profit from the Scottish diaspora.

There is no perfect solution. We thought that the most important issue was that the parties in Northern Ireland should not be cut off from funding in the Republic. If that meant that it became difficult, or even virtually impossible, to block funding from outside the Republic, then that consequence, although profoundly undesirable, would be unavoidable.

Lord Howie of Troon (Labour)

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I am very much enjoying watching him wriggling on this hook. It is a fine sight and he is wriggling extremely well. However, I should like to put one simple question to him. Why should we go out of our way to make life easier for Sinn Fein in the, I believe forlorn, hope that it might give us something in return, which it shows very little sign of doing?

Lord Goodhart (Liberal Democrat)

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. However, this is a perfectly fair question to ask. First, from the debate that we have had this evening, it sounds as though Sinn Fein is the only party which represents those in Northern Ireland who seek reunification. Of course, as we all know, that is untrue. It is not even the largest party. Throughout, the SDLP has renounced violence but it depends, perhaps not to the extent that Sinn Fein does but to a considerable extent, on funding from the Republic. I believe that, again, it is a perfectly legitimate point that what has been yielded so far by Sinn Fein is inadequate and there is not a very encouraging prospect that it will yield more.

Nevertheless, we are looking at what will happen in the longer term and I do not believe that it would be right to ban the funding of political parties in Northern Ireland by citizens in the South simply on the basis that one of the two main parties seeking reunification has been guilty of extremely serious acts of violence for many years.

Baroness Park of Monmouth (Conservative)

I wish to make two points. First, a cardinal part of the Belfast agreement is that the country chose by a majority to stay in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I find it difficult to understand why it should be treated differently from any other part of the United Kingdom. That sends a message that we already accept that it is floating off into the sea, and I suspect that some people would like to give it a hearty push.

Secondly, I do not understand why we cannot insist that foreign donors' names will be made public. I take the point that it is perfectly possible for them to give money through the Republic. However, there is no reason why donors in the Republic should not be named. They are not at risk and Mr Galvin in New York is not at risk. I am wholly unimpressed by the idea that those poor creatures who give money might be at risk because they have done so.

Surely we should be considering the following broad points: first, that we are talking about a part of the United Kingdom; secondly, that we are undoubtedly giving comfort to the enemies of that part of the United Kingdom; and, thirdly, that there is absolutely no reason that I can see why the identity of foreign donors should be kept secret. It is very interesting that we seem to be so concerned about protecting them. Let us suppose that Mr Galvin--that splendid character who appeared in Dundalk the day after Omagh with money for the Real IRA--sends money to the Republic. Surely the identity of the person to whom he sends it will give us--and not only us but the world at large--a clue as to where the money came from.

Therefore, I accept the fact that the Republic is in a particular situation and in a particular relationship to Nationalists. However, I do not accept that there is any reason whatever to protect the identity of major foreign donors from abroad; nor do I accept that we should make special rules for a part of the United Kingdom which North and South accepted would be so.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

This has been a rather better-tempered debate than that which we had on 11th May and I am grateful for the generally constructive tone which has been adopted since that time.

I struggle to see that we can make progress with this other than in the way which the Government have set out. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said that we should think very seriously about the position that we have set out in relation to Northern Ireland. I thought about it very seriously before 11th May and have been doing so ever since. As I believe I made plain then--and perhaps this was part of my discomfort--no one says that this is a perfect solution to the problems which undoubtedly remain with politics in Northern Ireland.

There is one allegation which I must answer and refute; that is, that somehow the arrangements that we have set out in these amendments are a form of concession to Sinn Fein. They are not. That is not the intention behind what the Government are attempting to achieve.

We are trying to deal in a practical way with a very difficult set of problems. The close relationship in politics between Northern Ireland and the Republic has been fairly acknowledged and admitted on all sides of the Committee. That situation was acknowledged in the Neill report to the point that it was accepted that it seemed reasonable, or at least not unreasonable, that people living in the Republic of Ireland should be able to donate to political parties that operate across the boundary and which operate within Northern Ireland itself.

That is, perhaps, the kernel of the problem. That is why it is so difficult for us somehow hermetically to seal the whole situation and prevent donations coming into Northern Ireland from other parts of the world. I believe that that is an insurmountable problem in the current situation. It is for that reason that we have adopted the course we have.

The other point which is extremely important is that, of all of the parties which are concerned in the politics of that part of the United Kingdom, the only party which says that it favours disclosure is Sinn Fein. All the other parties have said that disclosure would place them, their members, the donors and potential donors in a position of considerable risk. That places a very large question mark over our ability to apply to Northern Ireland the rigorous regime which we intend to have in place for the rest of the United Kingdom. That is an extremely important issue. That is why I went as carefully over the testimonies as I did.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, asked me whether there is a sunset clause; there is not. If no order is in force under Clause 65, there would still be a separate register for Northern Ireland but Northern Ireland parties would be subject to the totality of the controls on donations. The changes to the register will work whether or not an order is in force.

I hope that I made plain in my comments in opening this debate that we continue, and will continue, to review matters in relation to Northern Ireland. We shall certainly want to review them within four years. I listened very carefully to the extremely constructive contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I shall give very careful consideration to the points that he made. They were very constructive indeed.

I do not want to see us in government rewarding acts of violence in any way, shape or form. I do not see, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, does, that somehow, we have come up with a set of arrangements which supports, as it were, the approach adopted by Sinn Fein in the past. That is not what we are intending to do.

This is a difficult problem, not an easy one to solve. If there were easy solutions to hand, I am confident we would have found them thus far. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, acknowledged, I have tried to set out the position in some length. I believe that that position is the best we can do in the circumstances. It is workable, and we shall have constantly to review it. Obviously, we shall continue to listen to other points of view so that we get it right. I hope that our amendments will be accepted by the Committee.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

We have dealt with the amendments in this group which concern Ireland. We have still to deal with the minor party, to which I shall turn in a moment.

The Minister said that this was a better tempered debate. Perhaps I may say that that is because he has come clean at the start and has not had to have things dragged out, like the dentists whom your Lordships discussed during the dinner break. He has admitted what this is about. I do not believe that the Minister finds it in the least surprising that Sinn Fein does not favour disclosure, whereas all the other parties do. There is a self-evident truth there which, if the Minister does not understand it, makes me even more depressed about the Government's reading of the situation in Northern Ireland.

The other political parties in Northern Ireland--I quoted the Ulster Unionists--think that foreign donations should be stopped.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I misheard him. I thought I had made it plain that the other parties in Northern Ireland do not favour disclosure, and that it was Sinn Fein that favoured it. Does the noble Lord accept the point?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

Of course I accept the point. I understand why Sinn Fein does not favour disclosure--

Noble Lords:

Does favour disclosure!

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

I apologise; does favour disclosure. However, if the Minister does not understand why Sinn Fein favours disclosure, he lives in Cloud-cuckoo-land. Everybody else in the Chamber will know why Sinn Fein wants to see disclosure. If I was slightly mixed up, I apologise. However, the point is that Sinn Fein will not want to stop donations from abroad. As I indicated when I quoted the Ulster Unionists, the other political parties in Northern Ireland are content to have donations from abroad stopped. They have no problem with that. I believe that the SDLP will be a very small player in terms of receiving donations from the United States.

My noble friend suggested that perhaps the Government might consider a half-way house. Why should not donations from people abroad be made public? I do not see any problem with that. They are coming to only one political party. Therefore, why should we not know? We know what happens in the Republic. I have a press cutting here. If I wanted to spend time, I could read out who Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein receive money from. However, the information on Sinn Fein is rather easier to read out: the Friends of Sinn Fein in the USA (Park Road, New York) contributed £3,700 and $117,000. The Friends of Sinn Fein in Australia are also mentioned.

Perhaps between now and Report the Minister could consider the question of disclosure of donations from abroad of over £5,000. That might go some way towards helping us with our difficulty with this. However, I do not think it would go very far.

The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, at least attempted to address my question regarding the Scottish National Party. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that it was a good attempt but it did not satisfy me. The Minister has always ignored this real point. Why should an Irish American be able to pay money to Sinn Fein/IRA when his next-door neighbour cannot pay any money to his old country party, the SNP? I fail to understand how the Government can justify that. Indeed, they do not attempt to justify it. The "justification" is in the violent nature of Sinn Fein and the deal they are doing to try to get it on side. However, I can see that I shall not make progress tonight, so we shall have to consider what to do on this issue on Report.

I turn to Amendment No. 63 and to the amendments concerning minor parties. I particularly want to ask the Government about Amendments Nos. 132 and 93. I do not think that the Minister went into great detail on minor parties, which is a pity. We shall shortly deal with the principle, but I should like to deal now with a technical point with regard to those two amendments.

Amendment No. 132 provides that the restrictions on accepting donations will not apply to minor parties; that is, to those that only contest parish council elections. Let us take an unscrupulous and devious politician--none in your Lordships' Chamber of course but there may be some outside--who creates and registers a minor party, pledging with the utmost sincerity to the electoral commission that it will only contest parish elections. Then, using the exemptions in Amendment No. 132, it takes large sums of money from abroad and sources of funding that may be denied to the main political parties.

What is there then to stop that politician, having taken all that foreign cash, from amending that party's registration to allow it to contest national elections? He would be allowed to do so under new subsection (7) of Amendment No. 93, and there would be no reason for the commission to refuse such an application, not only because there would be no record of the foreign donations, but even if there were there would be no grounds under the provisions in those amendments for the electoral commission to refuse to allow registration.

The Minister may say that that is far-fetched; but that is not an impossible scenario. The Minister being entirely an innocent abroad of course will not have seen that. But if I can devise such a scenario without too much trouble, then I suspect that others, less scrupulous than myself, might not only devise it, but might also use it. That could drive a coach and horses through the ban on foreign funding.

If that analysis is correct, then a flaw exists in this provision which I suggest the Government ought to consider before we finish with this Bill. The Minister may tell me I am wrong or that I have misread the amendments and interrelated them wrongly. If so, I shall be happy to accept his assurance. If not, perhaps between now and Report he will consider the issue and we can return to it, if necessary.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

I am not confident that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, the reassurance in the terms he seeks. However, I shall take away the point and consider it as he asks. My reading of the amendment does not suggest the construction that the noble Lord puts on it. But I want to be certain that that is the case. The noble Lord is being fair in suggesting that we give him an assurance before or on Report.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendment No. 57:

Page 12, line 9, after ("a") insert ("qualifying").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendment No. 58:

Page 12, line 10, at end insert--

("(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) a party (other than a minor party) is a "qualifying registered party" in relation to a relevant election if--

(a) the constituency, local government area or electoral region in which the election is held--

(i) is in England, Scotland or Wales, or

(ii) is the electoral region of Scotland or Wales,

and the party was, on the last day for publication of notice of the election, registered in respect of that part of Great Britain in the Great Britain register maintained by the Commission under section (The new registers), or

(b) the constituency, district electoral area or electoral region in which the election is held--

(i) is in Northern Ireland, or

(ii) is the electoral region of Northern Ireland,

and the party was, on that day, registered in the Northern Ireland register maintained by the Commission under that section.

(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1) a minor party is a "qualifying registered party" in relation to a relevant election if--

(a) the election is a parish or community election; and

(b) the party was, on the last day for publication of notice of the election, registered in the Great Britain register in respect of the part of Great Britain in which the election is held.").

[Amendments Nos. 58A to 58H, as amendments to Amendment No. 58, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 58 agreed to.

Lord Bach (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)

moved Amendment No. 59:

Page 12, line 14, at end insert--

("(ii) where the candidate is the Speaker of the House of Commons seeking re-election, "The Speaker seeking re-election"; or").

Lord Bach (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)

On behalf of my noble friend, in moving Amendment No. 59 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 111. I hope to address the Committee at short length on this matter.

As I shall explain at greater length when we come to opposition Amendment No. 60, the purpose of Clause 20 is to bring all organisations which put up candidates at an election within the controls on parties' income and expenditure. To achieve that end it prevents candidates using any description other than that of "Independent", unless they are standing on behalf of a registered party.

Madam Speaker pointed out that the Speaker of the House of Commons has traditionally used the description, "The Speaker seeking re-election". The purpose of Clause 20 would not be undermined by allowing the holder of that office to continue to use such a description. Amendment No. 59 effects that simple modification. Amendment No. 111 makes a consequential amendment to Clause 34.

Although, as the Committee will know well, Madam Speaker has announced her intention to resign her seat later this year and will not therefore need to avail herself of the position, we believe that it should be open to her successors to make use of such a description on the ballot paper. I beg to move.

Viscount Astor (Conservative)

The amendment is extraordinary because it exemplifies the muddle which the Bill was in when it went through the Commons. It went through all its stages in the other place but no one realised that there was a problem with the re-election of the Speaker. It was not picked up until the Bill came to this House. That shows how rushed and ill-thought-out were some of its arrangements. I do not want to press the point and obviously we support the amendments, but it is surprising that the Government never thought of them previously.

Lord Bach (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)

One can take one of two views: either that taken by the noble Viscount or that which suggests this House is a revising Chamber and that it does its job when it raises such points.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

moved Amendment No. 60:

Page 12, line 15, at end insert (", or

(c) the description of the candidate given in his nomination paper includes the word "Independent" and no more than five other words which do not contravene the restrictions laid down in section 25(2)(a), (c), (d), (e) and (f)").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

The Bill proposes that a person standing as an independent candidate is allowed to use only the word "independent". That description is extraordinarily narrow and most unfair on such people. I do not believe for one minute that the electorate become confused over Labour candidates and independent Labour candidates, or Conservative candidates and independent Conservative candidates. I do not believe that the electorate become confused at all. The issue is clear. I understand that certain playing around with names may confuse the electorate but I do not believe that adding words such as "Conservative" or "Labour" to the word "independent" confuses the electorate one little bit.

Most people who stand as independent candidates are not widely known and it is not fair that they should be restricted to only the word "independent". Some independent candidates need no other description. That was certainly the case with Dennis Canavan when he stood as an independent candidate for the Scottish Parliament and so thoroughly trounced the Labour candidate. And Mr Canavan deservedly trounced the Labour candidate because of the appalling way in which he was treated by the Labour Party. He was not even allowed back in and now he is to precipitate a by-election. I would advise Members opposite not to put their shirts on at the bookies that their party will hold on to the seat. I believe that many Labour voters in that constituency are still aggrieved by the way their party behaved towards Dennis Canavan.

He did not need to explain what he was about; "independent" was enough. He was extraordinarily well known and popular, as the final election results showed. However, most independent candidates are not. They may be being difficult, rebelling against their party or in disagreement but I do not see why their description should be narrowed down to only the word "independent". It is part and parcel of the Government's control freakery and it seems to me to inhibit the freedom of the individual. I believe that, provided the title that is used is clear, no confusion is caused. "Independent Conservative" or "Independent Labour" is perfectly clear and understood by the electorate and I see no reason for the Government to retain the restriction. In order to be fair to those people who want to exercise their democratic rights and stand for Parliament the Government should accept my amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley (Green)

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. Not only is it a question of the right of people to stand as candidates, it is the right of the electorate to have an indication of what they are standing for. There should be on the ballot paper a brief indication of the kind of independent a particular animal is. I believe that the proposal that they should be described only as "independent" is bad and I oppose it.

Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)

I understand the legitimate concern of the Government in this matter, but perhaps there is an alternative way to address the problem. For example, 600 candidates who stand in a general election as independents may all have the description "Independent Against Europe". Effectively, those candidates are acting as a political party without any of the constraints imposed in this Bill.

I too am concerned that someone who stands as a genuine independent will be denied the opportunity to give himself an adequate description. There must be some means by which candidates who stand as independents cannot circumvent the provisions of the Bill but are allowed more than the very basic description "independent". There are some parts of the country where it is still not uncommon to find two or three independent candidates standing in local elections. Some description on the ballot paper may be necessary to enable electors to distinguish between particular platforms. Currently, there is provision in electoral law to prevent candidates in local elections from pretending to stand independently of one another in order to circumvent spending limits imposed in council elections.

Where there is a three-member ward in local council elections, three candidates from one party can spend double the normal election expenses limit. That applies to one candidate who stands in that ward. However, candidates are not allowed to have triple the normal election expenses limit. Each candidate can potentially pretend to stand as an independent and, therefore, claim three times the normal limit. However, the law says that, if candidates have a common agent or are deemed to be campaigning together on a common platform, they are to be treated as common candidates and cannot have three times the normal election expenses limit. One wonders whether some provision can be made to avoid the possibility of independent candidates ganging up and circumventing the legislation. If they behave as a party they should be subject to the provisions of the Bill. Will the Government give this further consideration before adopting a fairly draconian measure which prevents someone from standing as, say, an independent in support of the local bypass, or some other such description?

Baroness Gould of Potternewton (Labour)

I apologise to my noble friend for failing to give him notice that I intended to raise one small query. I very much agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and disagree with those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, about the use of a semi-political description; that is, "Independent Labour" or "Independent Conservative". I am a little surprised that the noble Lord's own party has not told him that at times it causes confusion and is not a satisfactory method. Nor do I believe it right that people should identify their names by what they believe in, because that is to put over a political message with their description, which they can do in other ways.

My query about "independent" is that it has been known--it may happen again--for people to use the names of others. Therefore, one may have Joe Bloggs Independent fighting Joe Bloggs Independent. I should like to know whether there is some way to ensure that individuals are distinguished perhaps by occupation and certainly not by political persuasion.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Conservative)

I was not a Member of this House on 3rd April when the Bill was given its Second Reading and so did not have the privilege of participating then. However, I have read with care the report of that debate in Hansard. I note how many noble Lords reflected on the changes involved in moving from what might appear to be unobjectionable, and perhaps desirable, strategic objectives to their practical implications on the ground. In a way, it is the difference between viewing topography in an aircraft at 20,000 feet and walking across it on the ground. A good part of Clause 22 as currently drafted contains a classic example of that particular danger, and for that reason I strongly support my noble friend's amendment.

The strategy to reinvigorate local democracy is entirely praiseworthy, but the practical tactic of wiping out all small parties unless they call themselves "independent" or register is dead against the practical implications of that objective at constituency level.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister to consider the case of Mr Bill Boaks and tell me how he would fare under the clause as presently drafted. Twenty-four years ago I was a candidate in a by-election in Walsall North. It was a by-election that had a certain high profile because the sitting Member had disappeared in Miami and reappeared in Australia. A considerable number of candidates put themselves forward. Among them was a Mr Bill Boaks. He stood as an "Air and Road Safety" candidate. His policy was to segregate motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. That is a very worthy objective, if a little narrow in focus for someone seeking a parliamentary career.

Neither that objective nor his campaigning methods carried any great danger to the democratic process. His campaigning methods mostly consisted of climbing inside a large cardboard box, on the outside of which were painted his slogans, renting a bicycle and slowly cycling around the constituency. It cannot be said that he obtained great public support. I think that 30 votes were cast in his favour. Perhaps Mr Boaks was what one might call a one club golfer. But he was not sexist; he was not racist; he was not ageist; he was not any other "ist". He was in effect a slightly eccentric elderly gentleman.

As presently drafted, Clause 20(2) will bring an end to Mr Boaks and his kind. To stand as an independent is not the same kind of thing, because part of Mr Boaks's description was his policy. It seems a strange way to reinvigorate local democracy by preventing the Mr Boakses of the world from participating.

When the Minister replies, he may say that Mr Boaks can register his party. I hope he will not say that because that would show conclusively that the Minister is at 20,000 feet and not on the ground. The kind of person that Mr Boaks was will never be able to cope with the bureaucracy, form-filling or indeed the cost of complying with the commission. Therefore, if the purpose of Clause 20(2) is to reinvigorate democracy, it will have the reverse effect of making politics the preserve of the professional.

I venture the thought that politics are too important to be left entirely to the professionals. Candidates like Mr Boaks perform two valuable services. Professionals take their politics very seriously. That is quite right and proper. But Mr Boaks reminds professional politicians of the transitory nature of their work. He performs a function not dissimilar to that of the medieval jester who could tell the king home truths that others in the court were frightened to tell him. He also reminds our countrymen that it is possible for any man or woman with a cause, however local, in which they believe passionately, to put it before their fellow citizens with the minimum level of bureaucracy and administration. In so doing, they perform an invaluable and reinvigorating role in our local democracy. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment that my noble friend has moved.

Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)

I also rise to support my noble friend's amendment. I do so briefly because the point I wish to make has been made already by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. My noble friend in moving the amendment has stressed the need to be fair to candidates. But I think the noble Lord made the more important point that one should be looking at the issue from the perspective of the electors. Therefore, while there is a need for regulation, one should not regulate in such a way that it unduly limits the amount of information available to the elector. One should put the elector first in considering that. It also relates to a later amendment. We should not consider the matter from the perspective of the candidate--however important that clearly is--but from the point of view of electors and we should make sure that they have enough information on which to make an informed judgment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

I thought that this issue would raise such concerns and I have not been disappointed. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, made his usual heartfelt plea--I think it was heartfelt--on behalf of independent candidates so that they might continue to have some description of themselves against their name on the ballot paper. I entirely agree that the politics of this country should not be the preserve of registered parties. That point was amply made by a number of noble Lords. I am sure that there will continue to be, under the provisions of the Bill, a role for the genuine independents--the Bill Boakses of this world.

The purpose of Clause 20 is to bring all organisations which put up candidates at an election within the controls on parties' income and expenditure. With due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, I have to say that Amendment No. 60 would serve to undermine that desirable objective. The key identifying feature of a political party is that it puts up candidates for election under a common banner. We know that a Labour candidate in London is part of the same party as a Labour candidate in Brighton. If the amendments were accepted, who is to say that an "Independent Against Europe" candidate standing in one constituency is not in some form of an alliance with a similarly described candidate standing in another? Indeed, the "Independent Against Europe Party" could easily field candidates across the country. Under these amendments, it could secure all of the advantages of having that description on the ballot paper but attract none of the controls on parties' income and expenditure set out in Parts III to V of the Bill.

If that seems fanciful, one has only to take a look at the list of existing registered parties.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

I am trying to follow the noble Lord's argument. If in every constituency, or jolly nearly every constituency, someone wearing the title "Independent Against Europe" came forward and was nominated, is the noble Lord telling me that that would not breach the law that he is beginning to set out in this Bill and that somehow the electoral commission would not be able to say, "We think this is a political party"? If he is telling me that, what is to prevent one of the other parties putting its name on the ballot paper and trying to pretend that it is not a political party? What is to stop it breaking itself up into individual constituency organisations? I am a little puzzled that an organisation could circumvent the rules as readily as the noble Lord is suggesting.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

I was describing what would be the position if the noble Lord's amendment were successful. If it were successful, the so-called "Independent Against Europe" candidate in each and every constituency would be able completely to circumvent the regulations.

If that seems fanciful, let us look at the list of existing registered parties. Among the parties currently registered are the Christian Independent Alliance, the Independent Alliance, the Morecambe Bay Independents, the Newham Independents Association, and the North Devon Independent Group. I know nothing of those parties, but from their names the final three at least are probably residents' groups. Although they may put up candidates who describe themselves as independents, they clearly act as a coherent group showing a common set of values and pursuing broadly similar policies and should therefore be regarded quite properly as political parties.

I do not pretend that we have put this provision into the Bill without a single qualm or without recognising its consequences for a number of individuals and perhaps--who knows?--for their electoral prospects. If a person standing as someone independent of any political party cannot describe in a few words the main point that he intends to pursue if elected, that is undeniably a loss. Some people might, however, think that it is not a very large loss. The nomination form and the ballot paper are places for the candidates to identify themselves, not to expound their policies. A candidate has already to have at least two supporters to back his nomination, and if they feel strongly that he wants a description against his name, it is open to them to form a new party.

In any event, if this provision does impose some costs, it is a price worth paying. We cannot contemplate a situation in which two or more candidates are in effect operating as a group, but are able to avoid the need to register. The amendment as drafted would drive a coach and horses through the scheme set out in the Bill.

Before I sit down, I shall deal in turn with the points that were raised in our debate. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, thought that he had designed a simple answer to the problem. I listened to his comments and I agree that his proposal sounded simple enough. However, a substitute would prove to be an onerous and contentious procedure to meet a simple rule. It would require an extremely detailed set of provisions to be added to the Bill, thus introducing even more complexity. There lies the problem: this matter is not as simple as perhaps the noble Lord first thought. The question of whether people comprise a group is difficult to disentangle.

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made a valiant plea on behalf of the Bill Boaks of this world. I have some sympathy with his point of view; I can well remember many selections where Bill Boaks was the candidate. However, it is the duty of the candidate to explain his platform to the electorate. He should not be able to rely on a candidate's description, a point I made plain earlier. If we are to have an informed democracy, then candidates--however lacking they may be in professionalism--have a duty to explain clearly themselves, their policies and why people should vote for them other than on the ballot paper.

My noble friend Lady Gould raised an important point. Candidates with the same first and family names can be distinguished by their second, third or even fourth names and by their addresses. That is already provided for in current electoral law. If candidates wish to use a description, it is open to them to register as a political party and to comply with the provisions of the Bill.

I recognise that this may seem somewhat heavy handed, but in order to ensure that the scheme works effectively in its totality, I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment. As I said earlier, it would drive a coach and horses through the scheme as it has been set out in the Bill. For that reason, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Conservative)

Desirable though this may be in the Minister's view, does he accept that this will mean that the bigger political parties will inevitably enjoy an inbuilt advantage over local individuals who, because they lack resources, wish to use their slogan as a part of their policy?

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

The answer to the noble Lord's question is that only time will tell. The bigger political parties already have such an advantage.

Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)

Before the Minister sits down, would he at least undertake to look a little further into this issue? This system does work in local government and on a number of occasions we have been able to prevent candidates from abusing the system. We on these Benches will find it rather hard to deny independent candidates the right to construct a short description. Perhaps the Minister could agree to examine this problem a little more deeply and thus come up with a solution that would avoid the problem which concerns us all.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

I always try to be as helpful as I can, and not only to the Liberal Democrat Members of your Lordships' House. I shall be happy to explore the matter a little further without making a commitment. As I hinted in my response, designing a system that would accommodate the noble Lord's proposal would result in a method that was perhaps rather more cumbersome and bureaucratic than would be desirable. Furthermore, it would not help the cause of those independents who seek a more expansive use of the title.

Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)

Before the noble Lord finally sits down, perhaps I may put one further point to him. When arguing against my noble friend's amendment, the Minister said that candidates may call themselves "Independent" against X or Y and that several candidates might come forward under that label, thus forming a de facto grouping. However, as I read it, could not those same candidates call themselves "Independent", omit any description on the ballot paper and yet still campaign against X or Y so that they would become more hidden under the existing clause than would be the case if they were allowed to expand the description? Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong about this.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

It is quite likely that a number of candidates, whether or not they use "Independent", may jointly campaign, or separately campaign and have a joint effect, on a particular issue. That is perfectly possible. It is perfectly possible at the moment.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

This has not been a satisfactory debate. It is a contradiction for the Minister to say that he wants an informed democracy and yet have a closed mind so far as concerns the electorate being informed on the ballot paper. I chortled when he complained that perhaps the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, was cumbersome and bureaucratic. The whole Bill is cumbersome and bureaucratic; another little bit will not make any great difference.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

I readily admit that the Bill is cumbersome and bureaucratic.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

What an admission! I was not even trying to catch that particular fish.

I remain unhappy about this. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth made a very good point. If the independents against Europe all decide to stand and put "Independent" on their ballot papers but "Independent against Europe" on their leaflets and so on, will they be caught by the provisions of the Bill or will they get away with it? That is what the Minister seemed to be saying was the defence against allowing independents to have five names. If independents do not put that on their ballot paper but put it on their literature, what will happen to them?

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

Obviously, within the bounds of legislation restricting what people can say in writing and going along with the usual formats and so on, when people enter into an election, whatever their party, they are entitled to campaign on the subjects they find most important to them or their particular party, or even if they are not a party at all.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

If they are not a party at all and put "Independent" on the ballot paper but issue leaflets saying that they are independents against the euro, what is the difference between that and allowing them to put it on the ballot paper if they continue to be "not a party at all" and they are not caught by the legislation? I am now extraordinarily puzzled, a condition I find quite usual when it comes to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, explaining matters to me.

I am tempted to divide the Committee. I earnestly hope that the Government will listen to the suggestions from their allies on the Liberal Democrat Benches and give this matter a little more thought. Perhaps they will think about the trap they have sprung on themselves. If a group of people--maybe 600 in all--decide to act together as the "Independents against the euro" but put down only "Independent" on their ballot papers, I think we are entitled to know whether they will be caught by the Bill as it stands. If they are not caught by the Bill as it stands, and the noble Lord is going to do nothing about it, I see no reason why they should not put "Independent against the euro" on their ballot papers.

The noble Lord used the words "an informed democracy". Democracy is not for the sake of the political parties but for the sake of the electorate. One of the things the electorate can do if they wish--if they are daft enough to want to do it--is to stand as an independent for or against something or other. Even if they are disaffected with our great parties and want to stand as an Independent Liberal or an Independent Tory, why should they not do that? It is their right. If you begin to take away that right, you are starting down a very slippery road--a road I am not happy about.

We will return to this issue at Report stage. I hope that by then the Minister will have given some thought to the issues that have arisen, which he has been totally unable to answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Goodhart (Liberal Democrat)

moved Amendment No. 61:

Page 12, line 23, after ("elections") insert ("other than elections to a local authority in England or Wales which is not a principal authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1972").

Lord Goodhart (Liberal Democrat)

In moving Amendment No. 61, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62. I can be quite brief because the Government have made sympathetic noises. I raised this issue on the first day of the Committee stage because it seemed to me that this was an unnecessary piece of bureaucracy.

The Government's definition of a party that needs registration is one that puts up candidates at a "relevant election", and relevant elections include local government elections. Local government elections include not only those for county and district councils and unitary authorities but also for town councils, parish councils and, in Wales, community councils.

The Government's proposals as they stood in the Bill when it originally came before this place were that any group of people who wished to put up a slate in any local election, including a parish election, should have to register as a political party in order to be able to do so. If they wished to stand only in parish or community elections, they would be considered a minor party and would be exempted from a number of the obligations of other registered parties. However, they would still have to register, and no doubt pay fees for registration; they would have to have a leader, a nominating officer, a treasurer and so on. That seemed quite unnecessary in the case of, let us say, a group who wished to stand in a parish election where the great issue was whether or not there should be a new village hall for the parish and who wished to stand under the name of, let us say, "Ambridge Residents Against the Village Hall".

This problem could be dealt with quite simply by restricting the definition of "relevant elections" to elections to principal local authorities--that is, district and county councils and unitary authorities or metropolitan boroughs--and by excluding parish councils and community councils, and, according to my amendment, town councils as well. I agree that town councils are perhaps a borderline case. Certainly, in the constituency that I fought in 1992, Oxford West and Abingdon, there is an Abingdon town council which is fought by political parties, but parish and community councils are by and large not.

It seemed to me that one could do this quite easily, simply by excluding parish and community councils from the definition so that they would not have to register. All that would be necessary would be to make regulations which would enable the returning officer to refuse to accept nominations of candidates from a slate who were proposing to give themselves a description which could be confusing in relation to another political party, or whose name was more than six words long, obscene, or whatever the problem might be.

I understand that the Government recognise that they have gone further than is necessary in this case. I am not entirely sure what their proposals are. When they are put down for consideration on Report, I shall examine them with great interest. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

I agree with the noble Lord. I shall not make a long speech; I shall not read out all my briefing. I simply say that I was persuaded by the noble Lord's argument last time round, and we think that this is a real issue. If the noble Lord is happy to withdraw his amendment this evening, I shall undertake to bring forward our own amendments on Report so that we can disapply Clause 20 in relation to parish and community councils.

I do not think that we can do the same for town councils. The noble Lord explained the reason. But we think there is a very good point there and I am more than happy to make the concession and bring back a proposal which we can no doubt discuss and agree with the noble Lord through the usual channels.

Viscount Astor (Conservative)

I had intended to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but I had a feeling that the Minister might be sympathetic towards the amendment so I listened to his response. We sympathise with the noble Lord and agree with much of what he said. However, if the Minister was sympathetic and agreed to this on 11th May of this year, I am rather surprised that he did not use the summer months to add one small amendment to the 96 pages of amendments that he has tabled this evening.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

The answer to that is that I have been rather busy with other amendments.

Lord Goodhart (Liberal Democrat)

I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendment No. 63:

After Clause 20, insert the following new clause--

:TITLE3:("The registers of political parties

:TITLE3:THE NEW REGISTERS

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

(a) shall be maintained by the Commission, and

(b) (subject to the provisions of this section) shall be so maintained in such form as the Commission may determine.

(2) The new registers of political parties are--

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

(b) a register of parties that intend to contest relevant elections in Northern Ireland (referred to in this Act as "the Northern Ireland register").

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

(a) the part or parts of Great Britain in respect of which it is registered; and

(b) if the party is a minor party, that it is such a party.

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

(a) the party as registered in the Great Britain register, and

(b) the party as registered in the Northern Ireland register,

shall constitute two separate registered parties.

(5) In such a case--

(a) the party shall for the purposes of this Act be so organised and administered as to secure that the financial affairs of the party in Great Britain are conducted separately from those of the party in Northern Ireland;

(b) the financial affairs of the party in Great Britain or (as the case may be) Northern Ireland, shall accordingly constitute for those purposes the financial affairs of the party as registered in the Great Britain register or (as the case may be) the Northern Ireland register; and

(c) any application for the registration of a party in accordance with subsection (4) shall similarly be made and determined by reference to the party's organisation and activities in Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively.

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

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

had given notice of his intention to move, as amendments to Amendment No. 63, Amendments Nos. 63A to 63J:

Line 5, leave out ("registers") and insert ("register").

Line 10, leave out ("registers") and insert ("register").

Line 10, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").

Line 11, leave out from ("elections") to end of line 16 and insert ("as defined in section 20(3).").

Leave out lines 17 and 18.

Line 19, leave out ("so registered") and insert ("registered in the register").

Line 20, leave out paragraph (a).

Line 23, leave out subsection (4).

Line 29, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert ("parties registered as minor parties shall only be authorised to nominate candidates for elections as defined under section 20(3).").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

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

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

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

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

Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)

moved Amendment No. 64A:

Page 13, line 30, at end insert ("; and

( ) for ensuring the compliance with the provisions of Parts V and VII (campaign expenditure and referendums)").

Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)

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

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

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

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

Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)

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

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

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

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

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Conservative)

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

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

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

In the Commons Committee stage on 20th January, the Minister responsible for the Bill there, Mr Tipping, said:

"The Bill puts onerous duties on parties that register. Someone in the party must take responsibility for complying with them and it is really up to the political party to decide who that should be".--[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee G; 20/1/00; col. 27.]

In fact, the Bill is fairly prescriptive as to who it should be, and that is what concerns us.

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

However, suddenly the matter becomes much more complicated and the treasurer may well have to carry out duties which are different from those that he is used to. My amendment would simply take out the words,

"for the financial affairs of the party",

so that the person registered as a party's treasurer must have overall responsibility for ensuring compliance. However, he would not necessarily be responsible for the financial affairs of the party because the person who does that is involved in collecting donations and in fund-raising and so on.

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

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

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

Clause 22 requires that a person is registered as the treasurer of a registered party. Subsection (4) stipulates that a party's registered treasurer must have,

"overall responsibility for the financial affairs of the party and for ensuring compliance with the provisions of Parts III to V and VII".

Amendment No. 65 would remove the first part of the job description; namely, the requirement that the person registered as party treasurer has overall responsibility for the financial affairs of the party. By contrast, Amendment No. 66 would retain that requirement but delete the requirement that the treasurer should be responsible for ensuring compliance with Parts III to V and VII of the Bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

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

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

Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)

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

Lord Bach (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)

moved Amendment No. 67:

Page 13, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert ("his appointment as treasurer terminates for any other reason").

Lord Bach (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

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

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

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

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

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

One needs to be a detective in order to understand what the amendments involve. But perhaps I may invite Members of the Committee to turn to subsection (8) of the new clause, which states:

"Part IIA of Schedule 3 applies to applications under subsection 3(a)".

Fair enough, but there is a bit of devil in that detail. What are the applications under subsection (3)(a) to which Part IIA of Schedule 3 applies? They are the matters specified in subsections (2)(a) and (d). So we turn to those subsections and find that they are concerned with the alterations of the detail. Subsection (2)(a) relates to the name of any registered officer of the party, and subsection (2)(d)--this is crucial--to the name of any treasurer of any accounting unit of the party. That means, in broad terms, the treasurers of every local constituency Labour Party, every local Conservative Association and every local Liberal Democrat Association.

But Part IIA of Schedule 3 does not appear in the Bill itself, or in Amendments Nos. 90 and 91. It appears in Amendment No. 101, on pages 30 and 31 of the Marshalled List. The crucial provision of Part IIA of Schedule 3 (Amendment No. 101) is the proposal in paragraph 10C which appears at the top of page 31. I am sorry to make this sound like a lesson but Members of the Committee will appreciate that finding one's way through these amendments is not the easiest task. So we go to the top of page 31 and there it states that an application, including an application for the alteration of a treasurer of a local party association,

"must be signed by ... each person ... who is one of the responsible officers of the party".

The paragraph goes on to state, very helpfully,

"For the purposes of this paragraph 'the responsible officers' has the same meaning as in paragraph 10".

But paragraph 10 of Schedule 3 is not on the Marshalled List; it is already in the Bill on page 109.

I made the mistake of trying to fit all the Government's amendments into the Bill in order to discover what they were about and my copy is now full and complicated. However, paragraph 10 on page 109 defines the term "the responsible officers" as,

"the registered leader ... nominating officer ... treasurer",

of the party. Where are we? I hope that that is not the intention but it may be--I know not--behind Amendments Nos. 90 and 101.

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

Lord Bach (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)

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

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

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

I am sorry to bother him--he will table so many amendments--but I have another little point related to Amendment No. 69, which is in the group. It deals with convictions for offences. The amendment appears to provide that the treasurer of a registered party shall cease to hold office if,

"he has been convicted ... of any offence under this Act or of any other offence committed in connection with a relevant election or a referendum".

The key word is "convicted". I understand that, even if the treasurer were to appeal against his conviction and to win that appeal, he must relinquish his office for the duration of the appeal and might even be barred from returning to it after his conviction has been overturned.

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

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

Lord Bach (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)

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

Lord Bach (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)

moved Amendments Nos. 68 to 70:

Page 13, line 41, leave out ("accordance with section 27") and insert ("pursuance of an application under section (Notification of changes in party's officers etc.)(3)(a)").

Page 14, line 12, at end insert--

("(8) Where a person registered as treasurer of a registered party is convicted of an offence falling within subsection (7)(b), his appointment as treasurer of the party shall terminate on the date of the conviction.").

Page 14, line 12, at end insert--

("( ) In connection with the registration of a party in both the Great Britain register and the Northern Ireland register in accordance with section (The new registers)(4)--

(a) a person may be registered in the Northern Ireland register as leader of the separate party registered in that register if (although not such a leader of the party as is mentioned in subsection (2) above) he is leader of the party in Northern Ireland; and

(b) references to a person's responsibilities in subsection (3) or (4) above shall be read as references to the responsibilities that he will have with respect to the separate party registered in the Great Britain register or the Northern Ireland register, as appropriate.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

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

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

moved Amendment No. 71:

Page 15, line 10, at end insert--

("( ) The Commission shall, in relation to any scheme under this section, give guidance in the form of a "model scheme" for the use of political parties and the Commission shall be entitled to--

(a) modify any such "model scheme" from time to time as it thinks fit; or

(b) request additional information from each party registering, or registered, in respect of its financial structure.").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

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

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

Lord Bach (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)

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

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

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

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

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

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

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

moved Amendment No. 72:

Page 15, line 15, at end insert (", with the exception of any organisation that--

(i) has paid an affiliation fee to a registered party, or

(ii) has a direct input into policy formation within a registered party, or

(iii) has a direct input into the selection of candidates for political office within a registered party").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 73 and 74. The amendments are directed to Clause 23. In order to show the enormity of what the Government are trying to do, I shall read out the important parts of Clause 23. Subsection (8) states:

"For the purposes of this section"--

for example, financial structures of registered parties--

"none of the following shall be taken to be a constituent or affiliated organisation in relation to a party--(a) a trade union within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 or the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992".

Therefore, a trade union affiliated to the Labour Party is not to be taken as an affiliated trade union. Subsection (8) then does the same for friendly societies and for,

"any other organisation of a description prescribed by order".

I should be interested to hear what the noble Lord is considering under paragraph (c)--"any other organisation". I do not think many friendly societies are involved. It is Clause 23(3)(a) which concerns me. It is standing fact on its head. How one can possibly accept that the trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party--I have no problem with them being affiliated to the Labour Party--are somehow for the purposes of the Bill not affiliated to the Labour Party? That beggars belief.

The Committee should not accept my word that the trade unions are affiliated to the Labour Party. I could read out the evidence of the Labour Party to the commission. I shall not because it is late at night. There were submissions from political parties and at page 228 there is one from the Labour Party. I shall quote parts of it. It states:

"The Labour Party is a federation of affiliated organisations, of which trade unions are the largest".

They are the largest affiliated organisation in the Labour Party, yet the Bill says they are not to be considered as affiliated to the Labour Party. The Labour Party's evidence continues:

"The principle of affiliated membership is a reflection of the fact that in the British political system, as in others, there is no single or one-dimensional view of how a political party should be organised or structured, whether in terms of composition or manner of internal government. In the British system we have accepted a plurality of forms of political party, and have accepted the principle that the members of political parties may properly include both individuals and organisations acting on behalf of their members."

It further states:

"The rights vested in members of affiliated trade unions include, either under the constitution of the party or as a matter of practice, the right to vote for the leader and deputy leader of the party; and the right to vote on the election manifesto of the party".

We know that. That is not disputed. The affiliated trade unions are fully part of the Labour Party. I am not complaining about that; that is what they are. But I complain about this almost sleight of hand that simply says "but for the purpose of the Bill they will not be affiliated". Noble Lords may wonder why a government will allow such a piece of legislation which is so clearly a sleight of hand. The simple reason is that if the Bill is enacted the trades unions will be able, as they do, to contribute to the funds of the Labour Party. I see from today's paper that the Prime Minister wants them to contribute even more to the party. The Daily Mail states:

"Blair begs the union barons for £20 million".

He will not need more money from anywhere else because that is as much as he can spend on the general election. But there he is turning to them as major backers of the Labour Party. We all know they are. There is no problem with that. If they continue to do that they should be open and above board about the amount of money they contribute.

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

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

Lord Boston of Faversham (Crossbench)

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

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

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

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

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

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendments Nos. 74A and 75:

Page 15, line 20, leave out ("of a description prescribed by") and insert ("specified, or of a description specified, in an").

Page 15, line 24, at end insert--

("( ) In connection with the registration of a party in both the Great Britain register and the Northern Ireland register, subsection (1)(a) and the other provisions of this section apply (in accordance with section (The new registers)(5)) separately in relation to the party in Great Britain and the party in Northern Ireland, and in that connection--

(a) any reference in this section to a constituent or affiliated organisation in relation to the party shall be read as a reference to a constituent or affiliated organisation in relation to the party in Great Britain or the party in Northern Ireland, as appropriate; and

(b) any reference in this Part to the party's constitution shall be read as a reference to the party's constitution so far as relating to the party in Great Britain or the party in Northern Ireland, as appropriate;

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

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

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

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendment No. 76:

Page 15, line 39, leave out ("and (7)") and insert (", (7) and (8)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

moved Amendment No. 76A:

Page 15, line 42, leave out ("the person registered as treasurer of the party") and insert ("any other officer of the accounting unit").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Bach (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)

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

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

The difficulty with the noble Lord's approach is that it envisages responsibility for compliance falling to,

"any other officer of the accounting unit".

But there is no requirement on a registered party to notify the electoral commission of the names of any other officers of an accounting unit. How then would the commission know which particular officer is to be held responsible? Unless we were to complicate the registration scheme yet further by providing for the registration of other officers of each accounting unit, the only practical alternative is to deem the registered treasurer of the central party organisation to be the responsible officer.

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

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

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Conservative)

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

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

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

Lord Bach (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)

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

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

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Conservative)

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

Lord Bach (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)

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

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Conservative)

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

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

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

Lord Bach (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)

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

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

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

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

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

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

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendment No. 77:

Page 16, line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert--

("(1) A party may apply to be registered under this Part by sending to the Commission an application which--

(a) complies with the requirements of Part I of Schedule 3, and

(b) is accompanied by a declaration falling within subsection (1A).

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

(a) a declaration that the party--

(i) intends to contest one or more relevant elections in Great Britain and one or more such elections in Northern Ireland, and

(ii) is accordingly applying to be registered (as two such separate parties as are mentioned in section (The new registers)(4)) in both the Great Britain register and the Northern Ireland register;

(b) a declaration that the party--

(i) intends to contest one or more relevant elections (which will not be confined to one or more parish or community elections) in Great Britain only, and

(ii) is accordingly applying to be registered in the Great Britain register only;

(c) a declaration that the party--

(i) intends to contest one or more relevant elections in Northern Ireland only, and

(ii) is accordingly applying to be registered in the Northern Ireland register only;

(d) a declaration that the party--

(i) intends only to contest one or more parish or community elections, and

(ii) is accordingly applying to be registered in the Great Britain register only.

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

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendments Nos. 78 to 80:

Page 16, line 9, leave out ("The Commission shall grant such an application by a party") and insert ("Where a party sends an application to the Commission in accordance with subsection (1), the Commission shall grant the application").

Page 16, line 11, after ("would") insert ("either--

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

(ii)")

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

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)

moved Amendment No. 80A:

Page 16, line 13, leave out paragraph (b).

Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baroness Gould of Potternewton (Labour)

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

Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)

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

Viscount Astor (Conservative)

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

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

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

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

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

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

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

Viscount Astor (Conservative)

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

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

Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)

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

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

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

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendments Nos. 82 to 84:

Page 16, line 21, at end insert--

("(2A) In subsection (2)(a) "already registered in respect of the relevant part of the United Kingdom" means--

(a) in connection with registration of the applicant party in the Great Britain register, already registered in respect of any part of Great Britain in respect of which that party is applying to be registered;

(b) in connection with registration of the applicant party in the Northern Ireland register, already registered in that register.").

Page 16, line 23, at end insert--

("( ) If--

(a) at any time two or more applications for registration are pending each of which would (in the absence of the other or others) fall to be granted by the Commission, but

(b) the registered names proposed by the applicant parties are such that, if one of those names was already registered in pursuance of the application in question, the Commission would be required to refuse the other application or applications by virtue of subsection (2)(a),

the Commission shall determine by reference to the history of each of the applicant parties which of them has, in the Commission's opinion, the greater or greatest claim to the name proposed by it, and shall then grant the application by that party and refuse the other application or applications.").

Page 16, line 28, at end insert--

("(5) In this Part "the register" means--

(a) in relation to a party registered in the Great Britain register, the Great Britain register, and

(b) in relation to a party registered in the Northern Ireland register, the Northern Ireland register.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26 [Emblems]:

[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendment No. 85A:

Page 16, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert--

("(a) would either--

(i) be the same as a registered emblem of a party which is already registered in the register in which that party is applying to be registered, or

(ii) be likely to be confused by voters with a registered emblem of a party which is already registered in respect of the relevant part of the United Kingdom,").

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

I am slightly puzzled by the need for both the sub-paragraphs in this amendment. I should have thought that the Government need only the words,

"would ... be likely to be confused by voters with a registered emblem of a party which is already registered in respect of the relevant part of the United Kingdom".

I do not understand why we require the first sub-paragraph, which refers to,

"the same as a registered emblem".

Surely if it is the same as the registered emblem, it could certainly be confused by the voter. Therefore, I do not believe that both are required. I believe that the second sub-paragraph subsumes the first. Perhaps this is what I might call a "Simon of Glaisdale question", in that I am trying to reduce the size of the Bill. I wonder whether the Government can explain why they need both parts; I believe that only the second is required.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

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

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendment No. 85B:

Page 16, line 41, at end insert--

("(2A) In subsection (2)(a) "already registered in respect of the relevant part of the United Kingdom" has the meaning given by section 25(2A).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 [Changes to the register]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendments Nos. 86 to 87A:

Page 17, line 1, at end insert--

("( ) (if registered in the Great Britain register) changing the part or parts of Great Britain in respect of which it is registered,").

Page 17, leave out line 2.

Page 17, line 5, leave out ("the party applied for registration") and insert--

("(i) the time when the party applied for registration, or

(ii) if a notification has been previously given under section 28 in relation to the party, the time when the last such notification was given").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

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

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendment No. 88A:

Page 17, line 10, at end insert--

("( ) The Commission shall refuse an application to change the part or parts of Great Britain in respect of which a party is registered if, in their opinion, the change would be likely to result in--

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

(b) such confusion in relation to a registered emblem of the party as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of section 26(2).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendment No. 89A:

Page 17, line 17, at end insert--

("( ) For the purposes of subsection (3), (4) or (5)--

(a) section 25(2)(a) and section 25(2A), or

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

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendment No. 90:

After Clause 27, insert the following new clause--

:TITLE3:NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES IN PARTY'S OFFICERS ETC

(".--(1) If at any time any particulars in a party's entry in the register which relate to any relevant matter cease to be accurate, the person registered as treasurer of the party must give the Commission a notification under this section.

(2) For the purposes of this section "relevant matter" means any of the following--

(a) the name of any registered officer of the party;

(b) the home address of any such officer;

(c) the address of the party's headquarters (or, if it has no headquarters, the address to which communications to the party may be sent);

(d) the name of the treasurer of any accounting unit of the party;

(e) the name of any accounting unit of the party;

(f) the address of the headquarters of any accounting unit of the party (or, if it has no headquarters, the address to which communications to the accounting unit may be sent).

(3) A notification under this section must specify the relevant matter in respect of which the registered particulars have ceased to be accurate, and--

(a) if that matter is specified in subsection (2)(a) or (d), include an application for the registration of a person as a replacement for the person currently registered as holder of the office in question; and

(b) otherwise, specify accurate particulars in respect of that matter.

(4) A notification under this section must be given to the Commission--

(a) where subsection (1) applies by reason of the death or the termination for any other reason of the appointment of any registered officer of the party, within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of his death or the termination of his appointment;

(b) where that subsection applies by reason of any other change in circumstances, within the period of 28 days beginning with the date when the change occurs.

(5) Where the Commission receive a notification under this section, they shall cause any change required as a consequence of the notification to be made in the party's entry in the register as soon as is reasonably practicable.

(6) In the case of a party with accounting units any reference to the party in subsection (2)(c) shall be read as a reference to the central organisation.

(7) For the purposes of this section any particulars held by the Commission in respect of the home address of any registered officer of the party shall be taken to be particulars contained in the party's entry in the register.

(8) Part IIA of Schedule 3 applies to applications under subsection (3)(a).").

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendments Nos. 91 and 92:

Page 17, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert--

("(b) so far as necessary to secure that such particulars will both be accurate and include any information so prescribed, contain one or more of the following, namely--

(i) an application under section 27,

(ii) a notification under section (Notification of changes in party's officers etc.), or

(iii) any information so prescribed.").

Page 17, line 39, at end insert--

("( ) For the purposes of this section any particulars held by the Commission in respect of the home address of any registered officer of the party shall be taken to be particulars contained in the party's entry in the register.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29 [Party ceasing to be registered]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendment No. 92A:

Page 18, line 11, leave out ("and IV") and insert ("to V").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendment No. 93:

After Clause 29, insert the following new clause--

:TITLE3:REGISTRATION OF MINOR PARTIES

(".--(1) This section applies to any party registered in the Great Britain register in pursuance of a declaration falling within section 25(1A)(d) (referred to in this Act as a "minor party").

(2) The following provisions do not apply to a minor party--

(a) any provisions of this Part so far as relating to the registration of a treasurer for a registered party or otherwise referring to a registered treasurer;

(b) sections 23 and 24; and

(c) sections 31 and 32;

but this is subject to subsection (8)(a).

(3) The registered leader of a minor party must, in the case of each anniversary of the party's inclusion in the register, give a notification under this subsection to the Commission within the period beginning one month before the anniversary and ending three months after it.

(4) A notification under subsection (3) must--

(a) state that the particulars in the party's entry in the register remain accurate and include any information prescribed under paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 since the relevant time, or

(b) so far as necessary to secure that such particulars will both be accurate and include any information so prescribed, contain one or more of the following, namely--

(i) an application under section 27,

(ii) a notification under section (Notification of changes in party's officers etc.), or

(iii) any information so prescribed.

(5) In subsection (4) "the relevant time" means--

(a) the time when the party applied for registration, or

(b) if a notification has previously been given under subsection (3) in relation to the party, the time when the last such notification was given;

and for the purposes of subsection (4) any particulars held by the Commission in respect of the home address of any registered officer of the party shall be taken to be particulars contained in the party's entry in the register.

(6) A notification under subsection (3) must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State.

(7) In addition to being able to make an application under section 27, a minor party may apply to the Commission to have--

(a) the declaration mentioned in subsection (1) above cancelled, and

(b) the party's existing entry in the Great Britain register replaced by such entry or entries (in that or the Northern Ireland register) as accord with a fresh declaration sent by the party to the Commission and falling within section 25(1A)(a), (b) or (c).

(8) Where a minor party makes an application under subsection (7)--

(a) the provisions mentioned in subsection (2)(a) and (b) shall apply to the party;

(b) the party must provide the Commission with such information as--

(i) would, by virtue of Schedule 3, be required to be provided in connection with an application by the party under section 25 to be registered in accordance with the fresh declaration mentioned in subsection (7)(b), and

(ii) has not already been provided in connection with its existing registration as a minor party; and

(c) the following provisions, namely--

(i) sections 25(2) to (4) and 26, and

(ii) paragraphs 1(2) and 7 of Schedule 3,

shall apply, with any necessary modifications, in relation to the party's application as if it were such an application under section 25 as is mentioned in paragraph (b)(i).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendment No. 93A:

Before Schedule 3, insert the following new schedule--

:TITLE3:("SCHEDULE

:TITLE3:TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS OF BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS

:TITLE3:PART I

:TITLE3:AMENDMENTS OF PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES ACT 1986

:TITLE3:Preliminary

1. The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 shall be amended as follows.

:TITLE3:Duty to keep under review, and report on, parliamentary representation

2.--(1) Section 3 (reports of the Commissions) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for the words from "Each Boundary Commission" to "the whole of that part" there shall be substituted "The Electoral Commission shall keep under review the representation in the House of Commons of each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and shall, in accordance with subsection (2) below, submit to the Secretary of State separate reports with respect to the whole of each of those parts".

(3) For subsection (2) there shall be substituted--

"(2) Reports under subsection (1) with respect to a particular part of the United Kingdom shall be submitted by the Electoral Commission not less than eight nor more than twelve years from the date of the last report under that subsection with respect to that part of the United Kingdom."

(4) In subsection (2A), for "a Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission".

(5) In subsection (3)--

(a) for "Any Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "The Electoral Commission"; and

(b) for "the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned" there shall be substituted "any part of the United Kingdom".

(6) In subsection (4), for "a Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission".

(7) In subsection (5)--

(a) for "a Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission"; and

(b) for "the Commission are" there shall be substituted "the report is".

(8) In subsection (7)--

(a) for "a Boundary Commission under subsection (1) above" there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission under subsection (1) above with respect to a particular part of the United Kingdom";

(b) for "of the Commission under subsection (1) above" there shall be substituted "under subsection (1) above with respect to that part of the United Kingdom"; and

(c) for "a Boundary Commission publishing" there shall be substituted "a Boundary Committee publishing under section 5 below".

(9) For the sidenote for section 3 there shall be substituted "Reports of the Electoral Commission."

(10) In section 3(2) and (7), as amended by this paragraph, any reference to a previous report under section 3(1) with respect to a particular part of the United Kingdom includes a reference to such a report which, at any time before the coming into force of this paragraph in relation to that part, was made with respect to that part by one of the Boundary Commissions constituted under the Act.

:TITLE3:Functions of Boundary Committees

3. After section 3 there shall be inserted--

"Reviews and proposed recommendations by Boundary Committees.

3A.--(1) Where the Electoral Commission intend to consider making a report under this Act ("the section 3 report") with respect to--

(a) a particular part of the United Kingdom, or

(b) any area comprised in a particular part of the United Kingdom,

the Boundary Committee for that part of the United Kingdom shall (subject to subsection (4) below) carry out a review in accordance with this Act for the purpose of enabling them to submit to the Electoral Commission proposals as to the recommendations to be included in the section 3 report.

(2) Once the Boundary Committee have carried out a review under subsection (1) above, they shall accordingly submit to the Electoral Commission a report containing the recommendations which the Committee propose should be included in the section 3 report in the light of the review.

(3) Where the Electoral Commission have received a report of a Boundary Committee under subsection (2) above, the Commission may--

(a) accept in full the proposed recommendations contained in that report and include them in the section 3 report;

(b) accept those proposed recommendations subject to modifications agreed with the Committee and include them, as so modified, in the section 3 report;

(c) reject those proposed recommendations and either--

(i) require the Committee to reconsider their proposed recommendations with a view to deciding whether to submit a further report under subsection (2) above containing different proposed recommendations,

(ii) require the Committee to carry out a fresh review under subsection (1) above with respect to the whole, or any specified part, of the area which was the subject of the original review, or

(iii) (in the case only of a review carried out for the purposes of a report under section 3(3) above) take no further action.

(4) A Boundary Committee shall, in or in connection with the exercise or performance of their powers or duties under this Act, comply with any directions given to them by the Commission (so far as consistent with the rules set out in paragraphs 1 to 6 of Schedule 2 to this Act (read with paragraph 7)).

(5) In this Act--

(a) "Boundary Committee" means a Boundary Committee established by the Electoral Commission under section 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; and

(b) "recommendations" includes (unless the context otherwise requires) a recommendation that no alteration is required."

:TITLE3:Implementation of Commission's reports

4. In section 4(1) (Orders in Council), for "the report of a Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "a report of the Electoral Commission under this Act".

:TITLE3:Notices relating to proposed reports or recommendations

5. For section 5 there shall be substituted--

"Notices relating to proposed reports or recommendations.

5.--(1) Where the Electoral Commission intend to consider making a report under this Act, they shall inform the Secretary of State accordingly by notice in writing; and a copy of the notice shall be published--

(a) in the London Gazette, if the report would be with respect to England or Wales (or an area comprised therein);

(b) in the Edinburgh Gazette, if the report would be with respect to Scotland (or an area comprised therein); and

(c) in the Belfast Gazette, if the report would be with respect to Northern Ireland (or an area comprised therein).

(2) Where a Boundary Committee have provisionally determined proposed recommendations affecting any constituency which they are minded to include in a report under section 3A(2) above, they shall publish in at least one newspaper circulating in the constituency a notice stating--

(a) the effect of the proposed recommendations and (except where their effect is that no alteration should be made in respect of the constituency) that a copy of the recommendations is open to inspection at a specified place in the constituency; and

(b) that representations with respect to the proposed recommendations may be made to the Boundary Committee within one month after publication of the notice;

and the Boundary Committee shall take into consideration any representations duly made in accordance with any such notice.

(3) Where a Boundary Committee revise any proposed recommendations after publishing a notice of them under subsection (2) above, the Committee shall comply again with that subsection in relation to the revised recommendations, as if no earlier notice had been published.

(4) Where the Electoral Commission are minded to exercise in relation to a Boundary Committee's proposed recommendations any of the powers conferred by section 3A(3)(b) or (c) above, they shall have regard to--

(a) any representations duly made with respect to the recommendations in accordance with a notice published under subsection (2) above; or

(b) (where they are minded to exercise any of those powers in relation to part only of the area subject to the Committee's review) any representations so made with respect to the recommendations so far as relating to that part of that area.

(5) Where a Boundary Committee's proposed recommendations affecting any constituency have been modified by the Electoral Commission under section 3A(3)(b) above, the Boundary Committee shall publish in at least one newspaper circulating in the constituency a notice stating the effect of those recommendations as so modified."

:TITLE3:Local inquiries

6.--(1) Section 6 (local inquiries) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for "A Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "In connection with carrying out any review under section 3A(1) above a Boundary Committee".

(3) In subsection (2)--

(a) for "recommendation of a Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "proposed recommendation of a Boundary Committee";

(b) for "the Commission", in both places, there shall be substituted "the Committee"; and

(c) for "make the recommendation" there shall be substituted "proceed with the proposed recommendation".

(4) In subsection (3), for "Commission" there shall be substituted "Committee".

(5) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted--

"(4A) Where a Boundary Committee have caused a local inquiry to be held in pursuance of this Act, the Committee shall take into consideration the findings of the inquiry.

(4B) Where a Boundary Committee have caused a local inquiry to be held in pursuance of this Act and the Electoral Commission are minded to exercise in relation to the Committee's proposed recommendations any of the powers conferred by section 3A(3)(b) or (c) above, the Electoral Commission shall have regard to--

(a) the findings of the inquiry; or

(b) (where they are minded to exercise any of those powers in relation to part only of the area which was the subject of the Committee's review) the findings of the inquiry so far as relating to that part of that area."

(6) In subsections (5) to (7), for "Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "Committee".

:TITLE3:Rules for redistribution of seats

7.--(1) Schedule 2 (rules for redistribution of seats) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 1(4), for "the Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission or (as the case may be) the Boundary Committee".

(3) In paragraph 5, for "a Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission or (as the case may be) a Boundary Committee".

(4) In paragraph 6, for "A Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "The Electoral Commission or (as the case may be) a Boundary Committee".

(5) In paragraph 7, for "a Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission or (as the case may be) a Boundary Committee".

(6) In paragraph 8--

(a) the words "for which there is a Boundary Commission" shall be omitted; and

(b) for "report of a Boundary Commission" there shall be substituted "report of the Electoral Commission (or one made by a Boundary Committee for purposes of it)".

:TITLE3:PART II

:TITLE3:AMENDMENTS OF OTHER ACTS

:TITLE3:Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38)

8. Schedule 1 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 (Assembly constituencies and Assembly regions) shall be amended as follows.

9. For paragraph 4 there shall be substituted--

"4.--(1) When the Boundary Committee for Wales ("the Committee") provisionally determine (in pursuance of the 1986 Act) proposed recommendations which they are minded to include in a report under section 3A(2) of that Act and which would involve any alterations in any parliamentary constituencies in Wales, the Committee shall consider whether any alteration--

(a) in the Assembly electoral regions, or

(b) in the allocation of seats to the Assembly electoral regions,

would be required in order to give effect to the rules set out in paragraph 8.

(2) Any such report by the Committee as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) shall contain, in addition, the recommendations which, in the light of their consideration of the question mentioned in that sub-paragraph, the Committee propose should be included in the Electoral Commission's section 3 report in pursuance of paragraph 7.

(3) In section 3A of the 1986 Act--

(a) subsection (3) shall apply with any necessary modifications in relation to any such proposed recommendations as they apply in relation to any proposed recommendations of a Boundary Committee under section 3A(2) of that Act; and

(b) in subsection (4), the first reference to that Act shall include a reference to this Schedule, and the reference to the rules set out as there mentioned shall include a reference to the rules set out in paragraph 8.

(4) In this paragraph--

"the Boundary Committee for Wales" means the Committee of that name established by the Electoral Commission under section 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000;

"the Electoral Commission's section 3 report" means the report of the Electoral Commission under section 3 of the 1986 Act for the purposes of which the proposed recommendations mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) would be made."

10.--(1) Paragraph 5 (notices of proposed recommendations) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), for "paragraph 4, the Commission have provisionally determined to make" there shall be substituted "paragraph 4(1), the Committee have provisionally determined to propose (in pursuance of paragraph 4(2))".

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)--

(a) for "the Commission propose to recommend" there shall be substituted "their effect is"; and

(b) for "to the Commission" there shall be substituted "to the Committee".

(4) In sub-paragraphs (3) to (5), for "the Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "the Committee".

(5) After sub-paragraph (5) there shall be inserted--

"(5A) Where the Electoral Commission are minded to exercise in relation to the Committee's proposed recommendations any of the powers conferred by section 3A(3)(b) or (c) of the 1986 Act (as applied by paragraph 4(3) above) they shall have regard to--

(a) any representations duly made with respect to the recommendations in accordance with any notice published under sub-paragraph (1); or

(b) (where they are minded to exercise any of those powers in relation to part only of the Assembly electoral region) any representations so made with respect to the recommendations so far as relating to that part of the region.

(5B) Where the Committee's proposed recommendations have been modified by the Electoral Commission under section 3A(3)(b) of the 1986 Act (as applied by paragraph 4(3) above), the Committee shall publish in at least one newspaper circulating in the Assembly electoral region a notice stating the effect of those recommendations as so modified."

11.--(1) Paragraph 6 (local inquiries) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) for "The Commission" there shall be substituted "For the purposes of this Schedule the Committee".

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)--

(a) for "the Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "the Committee"; and

(b) for "make the recommendation" there shall be substituted "proceed with the proposed recommendation".

(4) In sub-paragraphs (3) and (5), for "the Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "the Committee".

(5) After sub-paragraph (5) there shall be added--

"(6) Where the Committee have caused a local inquiry to be held in pursuance of this paragraph, the Committee shall take into consideration the findings of the inquiry.

(7) Where the Committee have caused a local inquiry to be held in pursuance of this paragraph and the Electoral Commission are minded to exercise in relation to the Committee's proposed recommendations any of the powers conferred by section 3A(3)(b) or (c) of the 1986 Act (as applied by paragraph 4(3) above), the Electoral Commission shall have regard to--

(a) the findings of the inquiry; or

(b) (where, in the case of any Assembly electoral region in respect of which the inquiry was held, they are minded to exercise any of those powers in relation to part only of the region) the findings of the inquiry so far as relating to that part of the region."

12. In paragraph 7 (reports)--

(a) for "the Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission";

(b) in sub-paragraph (1)(a), after "constituencies" there shall be inserted "in Wales"; and

(c) in sub-paragraph (1)(b), at the end there shall be added "relating to any constituency or constituencies in Wales."

13. In paragraph 8 (the rules), for "Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "Electoral Commission or (as the case may be) the Committee".

14. In paragraph 9(1) (Orders in Council), for "the Commission" there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission".

15. In paragraph 10 (interpretation)--

(a) for "the Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission"; and

(b) at the end there shall be added--

"(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) also apply for construing references to the regional electorate for an Assembly electoral region in relation to any report of the Committee made for the purposes of any such report of the Electoral Commission."

16. In paragraph 11 (definitions)--

(a) for the definition of "the Commission" there shall be substituted--

""the Committee" means the Boundary Committee for Wales (as defined by paragraph 4(4));"; and.

(b) after that definition there shall be added--

""recommendations" includes (unless the context otherwise requires) a recommendation that no alteration is required."

:TITLE3:Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46)

17. Schedule 1 to the Scotland Act 1998 (constituencies, regions and regional members) shall be amended as follows.

18. In paragraph 3 (reports of Boundary Commission for Scotland), for sub-paragraph (1) and the cross-heading preceding it there shall be substituted--

"Reports of Electoral Commission

3.--(1) This paragraph applies where the Electoral Commission ("the Commission") submit a report to the Secretary of State under section 3(1) or (3) of the 1986 Act recommending any alteration in any parliamentary constituencies in Scotland."

19. After paragraph 4 there shall be inserted--

"Proposed recommendations by Boundary Committee for Scotland

4A.--(1) When the Boundary Committee for Scotland provisionally determine (in pursuance of the 1986 Act) proposed recommendations which they are minded to include in a report under section 3A(2) of that Act and which would involve any alteration in any parliamentary constituencies in Scotland, the Committee shall consider whether any alteration within paragraph 3(2) would be required to be made in order to give effect to the rules in paragraph 7.

(2) Any such report by the Committee as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) shall contain, in addition, the recommendations which the Committee propose should be included in the Electoral Commission's section 3 report in the light of the Committee's consideration of the question mentioned in that sub-paragraph.

(3) In section 3A of the 1986 Act--

(a) subsection (3) shall apply with any necessary modifications in relation to any such proposed recommendations as they apply in relation to any proposed recommendations of a Boundary Committee under section 3A(2) of that Act; and

(b) in subsection (4), the first reference to that Act shall include a reference to this Schedule, and the reference to the rules set out as there mentioned shall include a reference to the rules set out in paragraph 7.

(4) In this paragraph--

"the Boundary Committee for Scotland" means the Committee of that name established by the Electoral Commission under section 13 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000;

"the Electoral Commission's section 3 report" means the report of the Electoral Commission under section 3 of the 1986 Act for the purposes of which the proposed recommendations mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) would be made."

20.--(1) Paragraph 5 (notices of proposed recommendations) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)--

(a) for "the Commission have provisionally determined to make" there shall be substituted "the Committee have provisionally determined to propose (in pursuance of paragraph 4A(2))";

(b) for "they propose to recommend" there shall be substituted "their effect is"; and

(c) for "to the Commission" and "the Commission shall" there shall be substituted "to the Committee" and "the Committee shall" respectively.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2), for "the Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "the Committee".

(4) After sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted--

"(3) Where the Electoral Commission are minded to exercise in relation to the Committee's proposed recommendations any of the powers conferred by section 3A(3)(b) or (c) of the 1986 Act (as applied by paragraph 4A(3) above) they shall have regard to--

(a) any representations duly made with respect to the recommendations in accordance with any notice published under sub-paragraph (1); or

(b) (where they are minded to exercise any of those powers in relation to part only of the region) any representations so made with respect to the recommendations so far as relating to that part of the region.

(4) Where the Committee's proposed recommendations have been modified by the Electoral Commission under section 3A(3)(b) of the 1986 Act (as applied by paragraph 4A(3) above), the Committee shall publish in at least one newspaper circulating in the region a notice stating the effect of those recommendations as so modified."

21.--(1) Paragraph 6 (local inquiries) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) for "The Commission" there shall be substituted "For the purposes of this Schedule the Committee".

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)--

(a) for "the Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "the Committee"; and

(b) for "make the recommendation" there shall be substituted "proceed with the proposed recommendation".

(4) In sub-paragraph (3), for "the Commission" there shall be substituted "the Committee".

(5) After sub-paragraph (5) there shall be added--

"(6) Where the Committee have caused a local inquiry to be held in pursuance of this paragraph, the Committee shall take into consideration the findings of the inquiry.

(7) Where the Committee have caused a local inquiry to be held in pursuance of this paragraph and the Electoral Commission are minded to exercise in relation to the Committee's proposed recommendations any of the powers conferred by section 3A(3)(b) or (c) of the 1986 Act (as applied by paragraph 4(3) above), the Electoral Commission shall have regard to--

(a) the findings of the inquiry; or

(b) (where, in the case of any region in respect of which the inquiry was held, they are minded to exercise any of those powers in relation to part only of the region) the findings of the inquiry so far as relating to that part of the region."

22. In paragraph 7 (the rules), for "Commission", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "Electoral Commission or (as the case may be) the Committee".

23. In paragraph 8 (meaning of regional electorate)--

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for "the Commission" there shall be substituted "the Electoral Commission"; and

(b) at the end there shall be added--

"(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) also apply for construing references to the regional electorate in relation to any report of the Committee made for the purposes of any such report of the Electoral Commission."

24. After paragraph 8 there shall be added--

"Interpretation

9. In this Schedule--

"the 1986 Act" means the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986;

"the Committee" means the Boundary Committee for Scotland (as defined by paragraph 4A(4));

"recommendations" includes (unless the context otherwise requires) a recommendation that no alteration is required." ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Applications under Part II]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendments Nos. 94 to 96:

Page 107, line 28, after ("application") insert ("for registration in the Great Britain register").

Page 107, line 31, after ("registered") insert ("in that register").

Page 107, line 32, at end insert--

("( ) An application for registration in the Northern Ireland register must specify either--

(a) a name to be the party's registered name, or

(b) a name in Irish and a name in English to be the party's registered names.

( ) If a name to be registered in that register is in a language other than English or Irish, the application must include an English translation.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Bach (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)

moved Amendment No. 97:

Page 108, line 19, after ("name") insert ("of the accounting unit and").

Lord Bach (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)

This short amendment plugs a gap in the information to be included against a party's entry in the register of political parties. Where a party is a party with accounting units, the Bill already requires the party to provide the electoral commission with the name of the treasurer of each accounting unit together with the address of the unit's headquarters or, alternatively, an address to which communications may be sent. There is no requirement to give the name of each accounting unit.

Without that information a party's entry in the register of political parties will be difficult to follow, not least for the electoral commission which will have to manage the register. The amendment will ensure that sufficient particulars of a party's accounting units are properly recorded in the register so that each one can be readily identified by name. It is this Chamber performing its revising duty. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

I cannot resist the temptation to say that I find it remarkable that all this time into the Bill the one thing the Government and the draftsmen have missed out is the name of the accounting unit. The poor old electoral commission would have many treasurers' names and addresses but no indication of the accounting unit responsible. If the Government can make an oversight such as that, is it not possible that they have made an oversight about the need to have another party official involved when the treasurer dies or resigns?

Lord Bach (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)

That is possible but not likely.

Lord Bach (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)

moved Amendments Nos. 98 to 101:

Page 108, line 38, leave out ("Paragraphs 9 and") and insert ("Paragraph").

Page 108, line 42, leave out ("the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule") and insert ("paragraph 10").

Page 109, leave out lines 1 to 10.

Page 109, line 24, at end insert--

:TITLE3:("PART IIA

:TITLE3:APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF REPLACEMENT OFFICER

:TITLE3:Introductory

10A.--(1) Paragraphs 10B and 10C must be complied with in relation to an application under section (Notification of changes in party's officers etc.)(3)(a).

(2) In paragraphs 10B and 10C "an application" means an application under section (Notification of changes in party's officers etc.)(3)(a).

Details of replacement etc. officers

10B.--(1) If as a result of an application one person will be registered as leader, nominating officer and treasurer, the application must request the addition of the name of the holder of some other specified office in the party.

(2) If an application requests--

(a) the substitution of the name of a leader, nominating officer, treasurer or other officer, or

(b) an addition in accordance with sub-paragraph (1),

the application must give the home address of the person whose name is to be substituted or added.

:TITLE3:Signature

10C.--(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), an application must be signed by--

(a) each person (other then the person to be registered in pursuance of the application) who is one of the responsible officers of the party; and

(b) the person who is to be so registered.

(2) For the purposes of this paragraph "the responsible officers" has the same meaning as in paragraph 10.

(3) If any such person as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) is unable to sign an application--

(a) the holder of some other office in the party may sign in his place, and

(b) the application must include a statement of the reason why the person in question is unable to sign and a declaration that the holder of the other office is authorised to sign in his place.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30 [Request by Secretary of State]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

moved Amendment No. 102:

Page 18, line 15, after ("the") insert ("Great Britain or Northern Ireland").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 103 to 107 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

This is part of a group of amendments which contains Amendments Nos. 110 and 110A, which are government amendments. I know that it is late at night and this is complex. However, that is not my fault. Perhaps the Government might like to say a few words before I ask them a difficult question, or perhaps I shall ask the difficult question first.

Lord Bach (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)

An arrangement has been reached, which I hope is satisfactory to all noble Lords, that before the Question regarding Clause 31 is put, we should consider ending proceedings for the day.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

Perhaps the noble Lord would like to ask his question.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Crossbench)

This is the first time that the Government have asked me to ask one of my questions. I was so amused that I lost my point.

I am puzzled by Amendment No. 110, which refers to:

"Transfer of registration of existing registered party".

I cannot find that in the Bill or in any of the amendments. I am totally and absolutely puzzled as to where we are being directed. The amendment refers us to a section or clause which, as far as I can see, does not appear in the Bill or in the amendments, nor does it appear afterwards. Perhaps I have missed something.

To be helpful to the Government, the other amendments in this group are drafting amendments. Deleting Clause 31 takes out the transitional arrangements. Can the Minister confirm that that means that all the political parties, including those already registered, will have to start again at the beginning as if they had never been registered? The transitional arrangements would have allowed a fairly seamless flow from one to the other. I may be wrong in that. I wondered whether that was the outcome of the deletion of the transitional arrangements and whether the reason for that is because we have introduced a second register in the Northern Ireland register. My main point, to which I hope the Minister has now managed to obtain some answers, concerns Amendment No. 110 and the words in italics.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Labour)

Amendment No. 110 will not be moved. It should have been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. But the bad news is that a whole group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 110A--at least one amendment in that grouping is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish--are part of the transitional arrangements. I understood that we were not going to debate those amendments this evening. I am happy simply to push them through and I hope the noble Lord is less puzzled now than he was.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey (Deputy Chief Whip (House of Lords), HM Household; Labour)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.