10/03/2017

:00:48. > :00:56.On the homeless this reduction Bill. -- homelessness. I understand no

:00:57. > :01:00.amendments have been set down to this bill and no noble lord has

:01:01. > :01:09.indicated a wish to move a manuscript and or speak to

:01:10. > :01:10.committee. Although I understand maybe from the Labour frontbenchers

:01:11. > :01:31.a question is to be asked. Unless therefore any noble Lord

:01:32. > :01:40.objects, I'd bid to move that the mood of commitment be discharged.

:01:41. > :01:46.The question is that the commitment to the discharge. I will be brief at

:01:47. > :01:48.I want to congratulate the noble Lord and the government with

:01:49. > :01:53.succeeding with this bill which is very welcome indeed. I hope the

:01:54. > :01:57.noble lord could take the opportunity after the bill passes

:01:58. > :02:02.which it will, to take up a couple of points with the government, not

:02:03. > :02:08.immediately, perhaps. A report has been published this week which

:02:09. > :02:13.raises a point about paragraph 18 on the code of practice, which raises a

:02:14. > :02:19.point about the revision of codes and the method in doing that.

:02:20. > :02:23.Obviously I'm not expecting any kind of formal response today, but may be

:02:24. > :02:30.the noble Lord could look at this and maybe he could also, in a short

:02:31. > :02:37.time, be able to invite the government to say how it is going to

:02:38. > :02:41.approach viewing the funding of ?61 million in the light of possible

:02:42. > :02:45.increased numbers of homelessness rising because of the housing

:02:46. > :02:55.benefit issue which has been so controversial this week. Again I'm

:02:56. > :02:58.not expecting the noble Lord to provide the answer but this is

:02:59. > :03:03.something which should be looked at in the next period. Could I add our

:03:04. > :03:07.thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his work on the bill which has

:03:08. > :03:11.been appreciated within the parliament and also outside and I

:03:12. > :03:16.think it shows that the amount of work done prior to the presentation

:03:17. > :03:22.of a bill both in the other place and here, reaps rewards, because the

:03:23. > :03:26.bill is a very sound bill and I would like to pay tribute to noble

:03:27. > :03:34.Lord bold Best for his work on this which has got us to the position we

:03:35. > :03:46.are in -- Lord Best. I thank you for your kind remarks. I will certainly

:03:47. > :03:55.undertake to speak with the noble Lord, the minister, about the

:03:56. > :03:58.question you raise, the review as to whether the sums allocated to find

:03:59. > :04:02.the homelessness reduction Bill is sufficient, that review will happen

:04:03. > :04:07.after the end of the first year of operation and before the end of the

:04:08. > :04:13.second year of operation so that before two years are up we will know

:04:14. > :04:17.whether enough money has been made available to make the homelessness

:04:18. > :04:20.bill reduction really happen, and if insufficient funds have been

:04:21. > :04:25.available I will be the first to be saying that. With those remarks, I

:04:26. > :04:30.beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged. The

:04:31. > :04:35.question is that the order of commitment be discharged. As many of

:04:36. > :04:43.that opinion will say content, to the country not content. The

:04:44. > :04:49.contemporary macro have it. -- the contents have it. I understand no

:04:50. > :04:53.members have been set down to this bill and that no noble Lord has

:04:54. > :05:00.indicated a wish to move a manuscript the moment or to speak in

:05:01. > :05:03.the committee. Unless therefore any noble Lord objects I beg to move

:05:04. > :05:09.that the order of commitment be discharged. The question is that the

:05:10. > :05:12.order of commitment be discharged, as many of that opinion will say

:05:13. > :05:30.content and to the contrary not content. The contents have it. ... I

:05:31. > :05:33.beg to move that the Bill be now we are

:05:34. > :05:45.the bill be now read a second time. Combating violence against women and

:05:46. > :05:53.domestic pilots, -- domestic violence, has been guided through

:05:54. > :05:58.conviction in the other place, and it has the purpose of unblocking the

:05:59. > :06:03.logjam which has thus far delayed the ratification of the Council of

:06:04. > :06:07.Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and

:06:08. > :06:12.domestic violence. Better known as the Istanbul convention. It also

:06:13. > :06:15.puts on the statutory footing important mechanisms to hold the

:06:16. > :06:22.government to account on the progress towards ratification. The

:06:23. > :06:27.UK signed the convention in June 2012 having played an important role

:06:28. > :06:32.in the negotiating and drafting of it and previous governments

:06:33. > :06:38.including a range of new legislation that prepares the UK from compliance

:06:39. > :06:43.with the treaty. And repeating verbal commitments to the principal

:06:44. > :06:49.ratification, the progress has been stalled, and maybe five years on

:06:50. > :06:51.remains are ratified. The Istanbul convention is a unique

:06:52. > :06:56.ground-breaking piece of international legislation which

:06:57. > :07:00.enshrines the basic human rights of a woman and girls to live free from

:07:01. > :07:07.violence in both public and private sphere. My lords, preventing

:07:08. > :07:11.violence against women and domestic violence can save lives and reduce

:07:12. > :07:15.human suffering. The convention focus on three important aims. To

:07:16. > :07:23.prevent violence against women, to prevent victims and survivors of

:07:24. > :07:28.abuse and prosecute perpetrators, and it brings greater coherence and

:07:29. > :07:33.consistency and strategic direction to the important work already

:07:34. > :07:36.undertaken by organisations, communities and governments that aim

:07:37. > :07:42.to eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination against women.

:07:43. > :07:50.And promote equality between women and men. It has been hailed as a

:07:51. > :07:52.best piece of international policy and practice for eliminating

:07:53. > :07:58.violence against women that exists anywhere. It is a first piece of

:07:59. > :08:01.legislation that sets minimum standards for government responses

:08:02. > :08:07.and victims and survivors, of gender-based violence. The Istanbul

:08:08. > :08:13.convention is broad in scope and the aims are very specific. Covering

:08:14. > :08:17.criminal, civil and migration law, it sets minimum standards for the

:08:18. > :08:23.protection of survivors and for access to services. Governments will

:08:24. > :08:29.try to ratify the Convention and they are required to prevent

:08:30. > :08:32.violence and bring about an attitude change. It covers many

:08:33. > :08:39.manifestations of gender-based violence including physical and

:08:40. > :08:43.psychological abuse. Stalking, sexual violence including rape,

:08:44. > :08:49.forced marriages, female genital mutilation and the so-called honour

:08:50. > :08:53.crimes. The Istanbul convention is unique in that it understands that

:08:54. > :08:58.states cannot be responsible for preventing bail and is against women

:08:59. > :09:03.and domestic violence on their own. -- preventing violence. It calls on

:09:04. > :09:09.communities to tackle cross-border issues, because it wants members of

:09:10. > :09:12.society to reach the ultimate goal of a world free from all forms of

:09:13. > :09:18.islands against women and domestic violence. It recognises that women

:09:19. > :09:24.are disproportionately affected by sexual and domestic violence because

:09:25. > :09:29.underlying gender inequalities which are also compounded by abuse, the

:09:30. > :09:34.convention also places an emphasis on challenging misogynistic

:09:35. > :09:38.attitudes that perpetrate the gender inequality as a means of preventing

:09:39. > :09:46.violence and abuse. Preventative measures are not the only important

:09:47. > :09:47.issue. Protecting victims and survivors and providing them with

:09:48. > :09:57.appropriate support is vital. State that ratified the Istanbul

:09:58. > :10:03.convention are required to ensure that sufficient shelters exist in

:10:04. > :10:07.adequate geographical distribution. Ratifying the Istanbul convention

:10:08. > :10:14.will put a duty on the government to ensure that women's refuge is exist

:10:15. > :10:19.and provide support at a time when women need it most. It also puts a

:10:20. > :10:24.statutory footing on the provision of rape crisis centres, 24 hour

:10:25. > :10:29.advice lines, and access to useful information. The Council of Europe

:10:30. > :10:35.says that it should be borne in mind that it is not enough to set up

:10:36. > :10:39.protection structures and support services for victims, it is equally

:10:40. > :10:45.important to make sure that victims are informed of their rights and

:10:46. > :10:48.know how and where to get help. I do believe that this important

:10:49. > :10:53.consideration, that anyone can be a victim of sexual violence or

:10:54. > :10:59.domestic abuse, regardless of economic background, age, ethnic

:11:00. > :11:02.religion or gender, however we know that there are certain

:11:03. > :11:10.characteristics that increased the risks. For example, poorer women or,

:11:11. > :11:14.or disabled women are at a greater risk of domestic abuse. Women from

:11:15. > :11:17.some ethnic minorities or cultural backgrounds are at greater risk of

:11:18. > :11:24.certain forms of gender-based violence. My Lords, one question is

:11:25. > :11:28.asked frequently, what about the men? I would like to deal with this

:11:29. > :11:35.because this was a point of contention in the other place. The

:11:36. > :11:41.convention itself quite explicitly addresses this issue in Article four

:11:42. > :11:47.where it makes clear that the provision applies to all persons,

:11:48. > :11:49.regardless of gender, and a whole range of other protected

:11:50. > :11:54.characteristics, however the convention primarily focuses on

:11:55. > :11:58.women, and it is important that it does because sexual violence and

:11:59. > :12:05.domestic abuse affect women to a hugely disproportionate extent. Both

:12:06. > :12:12.in terms of prevalence and severity, in England and Wales in 2015 over 90

:12:13. > :12:17.2% of the prosecutions brought for domestic abuse involved a male

:12:18. > :12:21.perpetrators and the female victim. Two women are weak die at the hands

:12:22. > :12:26.of their partner or their former partner. This does not mean that

:12:27. > :12:32.those crimes committed by women against men, or men against men are

:12:33. > :12:37.less serious. They are serious, but to ignore the gender dynamic of

:12:38. > :12:42.these types of crime would be wrong. One woman in four in the UK will

:12:43. > :12:46.experience sexual or domestic by a sin their lifetime. The sheer scale

:12:47. > :12:54.of the problem does demand that we take this much more experience. The

:12:55. > :12:58.joint committee of human rights in their report of 2014/15 entitled

:12:59. > :13:02.violence against women and girls recommended that the UK Government

:13:03. > :13:10.ratified the Istanbul convention. They raised concerns at a time that

:13:11. > :13:13.the internal ministry group had insufficient powers with witnesses

:13:14. > :13:17.to the committee criticising the group for not taking a holistic

:13:18. > :13:21.approach towards ending violence against women and girls because of

:13:22. > :13:29.the lack of representation from immigration officials. The Asylum

:13:30. > :13:32.aid recommended at the time that the Immigration Minister and the UK Visa

:13:33. > :13:38.and immigration department should have representations on the groups

:13:39. > :13:44.to ensure that the issues arising in these areas were dealt with

:13:45. > :13:49.effectively. I would appreciate if the Minister would write a response

:13:50. > :13:53.today or later but I would like to see these issues addressed. On the

:13:54. > :14:01.24th of November last year I asked the Minister kept -- question in

:14:02. > :14:03.your Lordships house, whether the government had ratified the Istanbul

:14:04. > :14:08.convention and when did they intend to do so? The minister in -- the

:14:09. > :14:10.Minister said at the time that the government was committed to

:14:11. > :14:15.ratifying but in order to do so they would need to legislate to take

:14:16. > :14:28.extra terrestrial jurisdiction over a wide range of offences. --. I am

:14:29. > :14:33.sorry, extraterritorial. Did I get that wrong? I thank the laws for

:14:34. > :14:37.taking that and pointing it out because I took that rather wider

:14:38. > :14:46.than I intended to do so. Thank you very much for correcting me! I shall

:14:47. > :14:57.now refer to that of the TJ, I think it will be a lot easier. -- as ETJ.

:14:58. > :15:00.The fact that perpetrators can evade prosecution by committing crimes as

:15:01. > :15:07.abhorrent as grape whilst abroad should stop. There is a precedent on

:15:08. > :15:13.ETJ, the government already exercises such power for similar

:15:14. > :15:17.offences committed against children overseas and exercises ETJ in a

:15:18. > :15:21.range of other areas, for a example in relation to drugs offences,

:15:22. > :15:26.financial crime, terrorism and other forms of organised crime. I am

:15:27. > :15:29.pleased to see that the Prime Minister has committed herself to

:15:30. > :15:37.overseeing a new bill on domestic buyer and is and I do hope that such

:15:38. > :15:41.legislation will include the changes necessary to bring the UK into line

:15:42. > :15:48.with article 44 of the Istanbul convention. That is those in

:15:49. > :15:50.relation to ETJ. When a minister replies I wonder if she could

:15:51. > :15:55.outline the intent of this new legislation on whether in fact it

:15:56. > :16:00.will allow the government to take over the necessary offences,

:16:01. > :16:06.ensuring the UK are compliant with the convention, thereby paving the

:16:07. > :16:11.way for ratification. There is real need for action in the effort when

:16:12. > :16:15.violence against women. Two women are weak or killed by their partners

:16:16. > :16:26.or former partners in England and where is alone -- two women are per

:16:27. > :16:34.week. In the same time frame across the UK 87,000 500 rapes and more

:16:35. > :16:38.than 400,000 sexual assaults were reported to the police. It is

:16:39. > :16:42.well-known that most cases of sexual assault and rape do go unreported so

:16:43. > :16:47.we cannot underestimate the scale of the impact on women and children in

:16:48. > :16:56.our communities. There is clearly a need for action. The UN special

:16:57. > :17:00.report on violence against women has said that violence against women and

:17:01. > :17:07.girls is the most pervasive human rights violation we face globally.

:17:08. > :17:14.Whether in times of peace, conflict or post-conflict transition. It is

:17:15. > :17:18.so normalised that we can hardly even noticed how much we put up with

:17:19. > :17:22.and I was moved by some of the contributions from members on the

:17:23. > :17:27.other place who spoke courageously of their own experience and it does

:17:28. > :17:32.affect us all. The violence against women is not natural and not

:17:33. > :17:36.inevitable so can I now turn to the specifics of the bill before us? It

:17:37. > :17:41.is made up of three clauses, it requires the secretary of state to

:17:42. > :17:46.report to both houses on the steps that is being taken to enable the UK

:17:47. > :17:49.to ratify the Convention. It requires the government to come

:17:50. > :17:56.forward with a timetable by which it will ratify the convention. I am

:17:57. > :17:59.pleased with the manner in which the noble man -- baroness, the minister,

:18:00. > :18:04.met with me this week and before that to discuss this bill in the

:18:05. > :18:08.run-up to the debate and I welcome the government support for this

:18:09. > :18:13.bill. Clause one recommends that the secretary of state should lay report

:18:14. > :18:18.to both houses of parliament setting out the steps necessary to ratify. I

:18:19. > :18:23.understand that this is not only including passing legislation

:18:24. > :18:27.through both houses, but also the devolved administrations in Scotland

:18:28. > :18:31.and Northern Ireland. I know the government are committed to working

:18:32. > :18:36.with a devolved administration and I welcome that commitment. Clause two

:18:37. > :18:41.requires the government to make annual reports to both houses on the

:18:42. > :18:45.progress towards ratification no later than the 1st of November in

:18:46. > :18:50.each year leading up to the ratification. This report comes with

:18:51. > :18:58.a commitment from the government to make an oral statement to Parliament

:18:59. > :19:09.so that MPs can hold the government to account. The convention commits

:19:10. > :19:14.the government to thorough reporting requirements through annual reports

:19:15. > :19:17.to the Council of Europe's expert group. It is important that

:19:18. > :19:23.parliamentarians have opportunities to scrutinise this report. The

:19:24. > :19:28.committee stage in the Commons the government committed to make an oral

:19:29. > :19:31.statement on the compliance with the convention post-ratification. I

:19:32. > :19:36.would be grateful if the Minister could make a similar commitment so

:19:37. > :19:41.that these issues can be debated in your Lordships house, rather than

:19:42. > :19:45.perhaps a report put in the Lords library. The report is a short and

:19:46. > :19:50.simple one, but it has proved to be an important one which will unlock

:19:51. > :19:55.the logjam in the government department. I do hope that it will

:19:56. > :20:03.lead to the ratification as soon as possible. We have the opportunity in

:20:04. > :20:07.this place to shape and develop legislation but we do need to take

:20:08. > :20:12.the license of our responsibilities as well. I have been heartened by

:20:13. > :20:18.the powerful civic society movement of women and men across the UK who

:20:19. > :20:24.have campaigned for the UK to ratify the convention. The breadth of

:20:25. > :20:32.support from organisations and activists show the strength of

:20:33. > :20:36.feeling that is on this issue. There is a very inspiring campaign run by

:20:37. > :20:40.volunteers which has helped to mobilise thousands of people the

:20:41. > :20:44.length and breadth of the country, to engage with MPs in order to get

:20:45. > :20:54.this bill through this place. I feel the women who have led this campaign

:20:55. > :20:58.should be very proud. It is often important that they are out there in

:20:59. > :21:00.front of issues such as this. Women activists have campaigned and

:21:01. > :21:07.Parliament needs to try and keep up with it. In the other place the bill

:21:08. > :21:11.was at Birtley stupidly -- was expertly Steward lay in the face of

:21:12. > :21:19.some adversity but the overwhelming cross-party support from the

:21:20. > :21:23.opposition and the government benches, we have the opportunity of

:21:24. > :21:28.oversight towards ratification and the timetable, albeit hopefully

:21:29. > :21:36.short, within which this can be achieved. My Lords, I beg to move.

:21:37. > :21:43.The question is that this bill now be read a second time.

:21:44. > :21:47.I congratulate the noble lady for bringing forward this bill and

:21:48. > :21:51.opening it so admirably and comprehensively. Yesterday afternoon

:21:52. > :21:56.when I enquired in the whips office how many were down to speak on this

:21:57. > :22:01.debate I was somewhat surprised, and really rather shocked, to find there

:22:02. > :22:08.were in fact then only five are now six and that they included not a

:22:09. > :22:13.single male temporal peer, and so I put my name down because heaven

:22:14. > :22:18.knows this is a worthy and a compelling cause and it is deserving

:22:19. > :22:25.of support is no less from men than from women. My Lords, we all know

:22:26. > :22:31.the appalling prevalence still today of violence towards women, both

:22:32. > :22:39.domestic and in wider society. I sat as a judge at various levels for 28

:22:40. > :22:45.years and I therefore came across perhaps more than my fair share of

:22:46. > :22:50.this violence, particularly in my earlier years as a High Court judge,

:22:51. > :22:56.sitting at the Old Bailey and then around the country on the circuit.

:22:57. > :23:06.Murder, rapes, all of those dreadful sorts of offences. My Lords, I have

:23:07. > :23:11.few boasts to my name, by way of legal achievement, few jewels in my

:23:12. > :23:17.judicial crown, but I can and I do boast of being the first judge in

:23:18. > :23:22.this jurisdiction in, I think it was 1990, to rule that a husband is not

:23:23. > :23:27.permitted in law to have intercourse with his wife quite simply

:23:28. > :23:34.whensoever he chooses. In short, that there is such an offence as

:23:35. > :23:39.marital rape, a decision said at the time initially to fly in the face of

:23:40. > :23:45.centuries of established legal principle, but which, in fact,

:23:46. > :23:51.happily was then upheld both by the Court of Appeal and by the appeal

:23:52. > :23:56.committee in your Lordships house. My Lords, reading the excellent

:23:57. > :24:06.Doctor Whiteford speech towards the end of the debate in the other place

:24:07. > :24:14.on third reading, I was struck by this particular passage. If your

:24:15. > :24:19.Lordships will allow me, I will quote it from column 1334 of

:24:20. > :24:23.Hansard. She said this, on reflection, it strikes me powerfully

:24:24. > :24:29.that Parliament has frequently be left playing catch up on progress

:24:30. > :24:32.for women from those who campaigned for women's suffrage for more than a

:24:33. > :24:36.century before it was achieved to the trade unionists who fought for

:24:37. > :24:40.equal pay for women years before the equal pay act 1970 came into force

:24:41. > :24:47.on the women who in the 1970s setup rep futures -- refuges for women

:24:48. > :24:53.fleeing domestic abuse at a time when there was absolutely no support

:24:54. > :24:56.from the state or the authorities for women experiencing violence or

:24:57. > :25:01.coercive control from an intimate partner, a time when rape within

:25:02. > :25:06.marriage was not even a crime, every step of the way it is citizens who

:25:07. > :25:10.have driven progressive change, sisters have had to do it for

:25:11. > :25:12.themselves. Well, my Lords, I thought it was time for a brother to

:25:13. > :25:26.enter the fray. Of course I recognise as Mr Nuttall

:25:27. > :25:30.emphasise in the debate in the other emphasise in the debate in the other

:25:31. > :25:36.place, that there is all too much violence in society and indeed in

:25:37. > :25:42.certain domestic contexts against men and boys, as well. And that the

:25:43. > :25:47.Istanbul convention and therefore this bill on its face appeared to do

:25:48. > :25:55.nothing for them. But there can be no doubt as the Nobel baroness made

:25:56. > :25:59.plain, it is women who suffer disproportionately, they suffer most

:26:00. > :26:05.from the hands of the opposite sex and there is no basis for suggesting

:26:06. > :26:09.that advancing their cause as this bill proposes will set back the

:26:10. > :26:16.cause of male victims, quite the reverse. Anything that raises the

:26:17. > :26:23.stakes and raises the public's awareness of and revulsion at

:26:24. > :26:28.violence generally in society will redound to the advantage of all the

:26:29. > :26:38.victims. My lords, of course I recognise that this bill and indeed

:26:39. > :26:42.the Istanbul convention itself, of itself does little in the way of

:26:43. > :26:52.altering the substantive law under which we seek to deter and control

:26:53. > :26:56.violence against women. But to say it does nothing is in fact only an

:26:57. > :27:03.exaggeration, the convention requires we broaden our juristic --

:27:04. > :27:17.juristic -- do restriction. And that is why we have to recognise

:27:18. > :27:27.now as it does the need for some small further delay be on even the

:27:28. > :27:33.years since we initially signed it. To the delay, is to identify

:27:34. > :27:41.precisely and then to satisfy this requirement for extraterritorial

:27:42. > :27:47.juristic but as Mr Nuttall himself said in the other place, the purpose

:27:48. > :27:56.is to try to tie down the government, to do something and to

:27:57. > :28:01.stop this matter from drifting on. As has already been noted in the

:28:02. > :28:08.other place, they voted to pass this bill by a votes to just one, and you

:28:09. > :28:11.will readily agree that it will be nothing sort of disgraceful and

:28:12. > :28:17.indeed deeply damaging to the reputation of this house if we don't

:28:18. > :28:25.now make sure that it secures safe and speedy passage at all stages

:28:26. > :28:28.through our house. Therefore we wish it God speed to secure its early

:28:29. > :28:36.passage if not in this session than certainly in the next. My lords, we

:28:37. > :28:42.want to give our wholehearted support to this bill. I've been

:28:43. > :28:46.following this issue for some while and have participated in previous

:28:47. > :28:52.debates and put down questions. I want to congratulate the doctor in

:28:53. > :28:56.the other place and the baroness for the hard work they and others have

:28:57. > :29:04.done to get it so far and indeed to the many agencies getting the bill

:29:05. > :29:09.to us today. In the face of a number of cutbacks and closures of women's

:29:10. > :29:17.services and refugees, we need a step change -- refuges. We should be

:29:18. > :29:25.giving a lead on this important area, violence against women is a

:29:26. > :29:28.tragic evil because it the effects can be so devastating and

:29:29. > :29:34.long-lasting and widespread. Evil not simply because it is violence

:29:35. > :29:42.but because it seeks to deny a fundamental human dignity which I

:29:43. > :29:47.believe comes from being created in the image of God, and whatever form

:29:48. > :29:52.the violence comes in, rape or forced marriage or psychological or

:29:53. > :29:57.physical abuse, gender-based violence against women in therapy

:29:58. > :30:03.attempts to reduce women to passive objects -- invariably. It seeks to

:30:04. > :30:07.deny them the status of personhood. As a safe place of council within

:30:08. > :30:12.every local community, the church often finds itself on the front

:30:13. > :30:17.line, listening to the stories of women who have faced violence and

:30:18. > :30:21.who don't know where else to turn. It is one of the greatest and

:30:22. > :30:28.hardest privileges of priesthood to listen to a woman or indeed

:30:29. > :30:31.sometimes to a man, although this is overwhelmingly an issue for women

:30:32. > :30:37.and we must not underplay that, although we want to make sure men

:30:38. > :30:41.are given protection. This must not distract us from this important

:30:42. > :30:47.bill. When we hear someone telling their story of abuse, sometimes for

:30:48. > :30:51.the very first time, sometimes only just beginning to realise that

:30:52. > :30:55.actually for all sorts of social reasons they have actually colluded

:30:56. > :31:00.with it and they now beginning to realise it is simply wrong. And the

:31:01. > :31:03.need to then help them find the right support which is profoundly

:31:04. > :31:10.difficult especially in places, like rural areas. I want to pay tribute

:31:11. > :31:15.to the many organisations who are working with churches and helping us

:31:16. > :31:20.up and down the country responding to violence against women. But those

:31:21. > :31:26.churches that are supporting, sometimes offering premises and

:31:27. > :31:34.funding, for refuges, and especially a Christian charity whose work in

:31:35. > :31:37.training clergy is invaluable. The baroness has already rehearsed some

:31:38. > :31:42.of the statistics and I won't say those again, although I want to note

:31:43. > :31:47.how horrific they are when one stops and looks at what is actually still

:31:48. > :31:52.going on. There are other areas which have not been picked up in

:31:53. > :31:59.here and in the past I put down questions about, for example, how

:32:00. > :32:03.many young women under the age of marriage in this country are being

:32:04. > :32:07.taken abroad and are marrying and are coming back to this country and

:32:08. > :32:15.it turns out that we have no idea. We have no idea how many such women

:32:16. > :32:23.are coming back having been married under laws overseas will stop

:32:24. > :32:31.sometimes possibly polygamists... We just don't know. In recent years the

:32:32. > :32:34.government has made substantial progress on legislating against a

:32:35. > :32:39.gender-based violence and I want to pay tribute to our Prime Minister

:32:40. > :32:42.who all sides of this house will agree has worked tirelessly in her

:32:43. > :32:49.Home Secretary to address many of Home Secretary to address many of

:32:50. > :32:53.the key legislative areas. Legislation to combat forced

:32:54. > :33:00.marriage, female genital mutilation, modern slavery, controlling

:33:01. > :33:03.behaviour and stalking. And although that legislation shows that UK one

:33:04. > :33:12.of the strongest legislative frameworks in the word, the Prime

:33:13. > :33:15.Minister's work as Home Secretary to improve police reporting and

:33:16. > :33:20.responding to domestic abuse is also to be celebrated and commended. In

:33:21. > :33:26.that context it is regrettable that this bill is required, given that

:33:27. > :33:29.Her Majesty's government has repeatedly stated commitment to

:33:30. > :33:33.ratifying the convention. In answer to a series of written questions in

:33:34. > :33:40.2014 after the convention came into force, the government said justice

:33:41. > :33:44.ministers are considering the extent to which we need to amend the

:33:45. > :33:49.criminal law of England and Wales full compliance with Article 44

:33:50. > :33:56.prior to ratification of the convention -- for. Three years later

:33:57. > :34:03.the justice ministers are still deliberating. That is a failure in

:34:04. > :34:06.the political will ultimately. Being charitable to the government, we

:34:07. > :34:10.could say there have been a few political distractions over the past

:34:11. > :34:17.year. However I do hope that the new reporting requirements will

:34:18. > :34:23.encourage the government to throw their weight unreservedly behind

:34:24. > :34:26.this legislative change that is required for ratification and this

:34:27. > :34:32.issue of territorial jurisdiction in particular. Ratification of the

:34:33. > :34:37.Istanbul convention will not only bolster the domestic framework for

:34:38. > :34:41.combating violence against women, acting as a tool by which civil

:34:42. > :34:43.society can hold the government to account on the provision of

:34:44. > :34:52.resources to combat gender-based violence. Our ratification of the

:34:53. > :34:57.convention also has an international dimension as the joint committee on

:34:58. > :35:01.human rights put it, the delay in ratifying the Istanbul convention

:35:02. > :35:05.could harm the UK's international reputation as a world leader in

:35:06. > :35:11.combating violence against women and girls. Ratification of the

:35:12. > :35:14.convention would be the clearest signal of our commitment to ending

:35:15. > :35:21.the injustice of gender-based violence. It would commit us to

:35:22. > :35:25.sharing best practice internationally and it would

:35:26. > :35:29.strengthen the Istanbul convention itself as a marker by which other

:35:30. > :35:35.countries might be held to account. I sincerely hope that the government

:35:36. > :35:40.gives this bill a swift passage through the house and that it

:35:41. > :35:44.follows the passage of this bill within equally swift timetable for

:35:45. > :35:56.ratification of the Istanbul convention. My Lords, I welcome

:35:57. > :35:59.today's second reading and congratulate the doctor and her

:36:00. > :36:04.colleagues in the other place and the baroness for their persistence

:36:05. > :36:07.in getting us here to this point. This pernicious abuse of women's

:36:08. > :36:11.rights continues to plague our society. Almost regarded as a

:36:12. > :36:17.households. It transcends all households. It transcends all

:36:18. > :36:23.communities, shockingly, so many women seem not to know still that it

:36:24. > :36:29.is against the law, so in deed an internationally recognised provision

:36:30. > :36:34.will lend significant armoury to the many women, human rights defenders,

:36:35. > :36:40.as well as instruct in no uncertain terms still largely male lead

:36:41. > :36:45.institutions that eradication of violence against women is as

:36:46. > :36:52.important as providing education, health, housing, and not able to

:36:53. > :36:56.hide behind the austerity measures and will not be able to make women's

:36:57. > :37:03.refuge and other services their first collateral. Whilst we should

:37:04. > :37:08.take pride in the UK in having secured some of the best policies

:37:09. > :37:13.and practices on domestic violence, including the introduction of new

:37:14. > :37:19.domestic abuse offences and protection orders and criminalising

:37:20. > :37:26.forced marriages with which I don't agree, but it appears to be doing

:37:27. > :37:32.its job. And more vigorous laws on female genital mutilation. We need

:37:33. > :37:35.to go further in providing protection to those facing violence

:37:36. > :37:42.and seek to eliminate violence against women. We have tolerated

:37:43. > :37:55.consecutive generations of violence to plague women's lives, two women

:37:56. > :38:00.facing death each week. 1.2 million victims, 87,000 rapes reported on

:38:01. > :38:07.top of 400,000 sexual assaults, God alone knows how many women are still

:38:08. > :38:17.not able to report. In addition to 11,900 children raped last year. 29%

:38:18. > :38:21.of all these statistics are from the BA ME communities and despite the

:38:22. > :38:27.progress of women's Emancipation, our daughters and granddaughters are

:38:28. > :38:30.still facing a level of barbaric violence in our society and we have

:38:31. > :38:35.to do everything we can to make sure it does not continue. The UK's role

:38:36. > :38:41.in shaping the Istanbul convention was significant so I don't

:38:42. > :38:46.understand five views since passed why we have not chosen to ratify it.

:38:47. > :38:51.I'm glad to have arrived at this point where government is prepared

:38:52. > :38:58.to work towards compliance. It is ratification indicating a very

:38:59. > :39:04.powerful step towards in power -- empowerment of women? As well as

:39:05. > :39:09.push for a more comprehensive response to addressing violence, it

:39:10. > :39:13.gives victims and survivors right for access to the necessary

:39:14. > :39:19.specialist services and ratifying the convention adds another layer of

:39:20. > :39:25.protection and enables local and international agencies to respond

:39:26. > :39:30.more comprehensively and offer parliamentarians another aspect of

:39:31. > :39:46.Why would we not do it without any help with the harmonisation of laws.

:39:47. > :39:53.Why would we not do it without any hesitation? The points that have

:39:54. > :39:56.been made about extrajudicial territorial requirements, I think

:39:57. > :40:05.that many women, I was involved in the dowry enquiry led by Mr Sharma

:40:06. > :40:11.in the other place last year and a huge amount of British citizens were

:40:12. > :40:14.complaining either that their marriages were not legally

:40:15. > :40:20.recognised in this country, and when they were facing violence they had

:40:21. > :40:23.no recourse to law, or that the laws under which they were married under

:40:24. > :40:26.one country is not recognised in this country and I think that that

:40:27. > :40:36.level of harmonisation would, I hope, be an integral part of this.

:40:37. > :40:39.We do have laws and are continuing -- continuously improving on

:40:40. > :40:43.implementation. The Istanbul convention can be another layer of

:40:44. > :40:47.safety. We are a signatory and we now need to show that we are serious

:40:48. > :40:52.about eradication of violence by signing up to it. I believe that the

:40:53. > :40:55.ratification we demonstrate, I believe that by ratification we

:40:56. > :41:03.demonstrate our total commitment to all men and women that violence in

:41:04. > :41:12.all its forms is not tolerable in our society today. This will be an

:41:13. > :41:16.integrated approach to not only protect women but laws and mandates

:41:17. > :41:19.and institutions to provide the necessary services so that women and

:41:20. > :41:25.girls can live free of fear of violence. Finally I am confident

:41:26. > :41:29.that our ambition is safe in the hands of our current Prime Minister

:41:30. > :41:35.and the noble Lord, the Minister, who has done so much to advocate and

:41:36. > :41:40.advance the previous progress made on this issue. Can the Minister say

:41:41. > :41:44.what the implication of the Brexit negotiation would be on reporting

:41:45. > :41:54.requirement or signing up to the ratification? My Lords, I, too,

:41:55. > :41:59.would like to thank the doctor and the noble Baroness, who I am sure

:42:00. > :42:04.did not wish to success that Scotland and Northern Ireland are

:42:05. > :42:08.not an integrated to part of the United Kingdom. The noble and

:42:09. > :42:15.Leonard Lord, Lord Browne, has rightly reminded us that this is a

:42:16. > :42:19.people's issue, not just a women's issue. His crown is highly polished

:42:20. > :42:28.and very bejewelled! I should declare an interest. I was a member

:42:29. > :42:35.of the board and a chair of the domestic fire and charity refuge.

:42:36. > :42:40.That was many years ago but I still declare the interest, because that

:42:41. > :42:44.experience was very vivid. Very recently, within the last few days,

:42:45. > :42:49.I have agreed to become a member of an advisory group for the

:42:50. > :42:59.organisation case macro voice for victims. It struck me that this

:43:00. > :43:03.debate may be wrapped up with the debate for International Women's

:43:04. > :43:06.Day, which was on the UK's role of promoting gender equality. Because

:43:07. > :43:13.of the significance of the exercise of the UK's role it would be very

:43:14. > :43:19.significant if the UK ratified the convention. I should not put it

:43:20. > :43:26.grammatically in that way. It will be significant when it does. Reports

:43:27. > :43:32.on violence against women often have a section headed something like,

:43:33. > :43:37.what is violence against women and girls? Sadly there are very many

:43:38. > :43:48.women and girls who could testify. This week a survey of laws in the 73

:43:49. > :43:54.countries found that there are bad laws underpinning a global epidemic

:43:55. > :44:03.of sexual violence. The aims of the convention, prevention, protection

:44:04. > :44:07.and prosecution and integrating policies are so sensible as to

:44:08. > :44:21.hardly need any description. They have only been, I think ten

:44:22. > :44:26.ratification so far. I joined the board of refuge when I was asked to

:44:27. > :44:31.come to a house ten years ago and attitudes in the UK have changed but

:44:32. > :44:36.not as much as one may expect in a generation. They seem to me to have

:44:37. > :44:41.changed very often among senior people who have to deal with the

:44:42. > :44:51.issue, to take the police is one example, left so in lower ranks.

:44:52. > :44:57.Some of us were privileged to hear DC see Louisa Wolf from the West

:44:58. > :45:04.Midlands talk about coercive control at an all-party group meeting

:45:05. > :45:10.recently. Her understanding and her description were very impressive

:45:11. > :45:17.indeed. I say that there haven't been the changes one might expect in

:45:18. > :45:28.a generation. Though the importance of the issue is so enormous, and yet

:45:29. > :45:35.there is a lack of belief, a lack of understanding. Can I complement the

:45:36. > :45:41.noble Baroness on raising the issue or people's attitudes. I declare an

:45:42. > :45:47.interest in night in the 1970s I was with a group of people as a local

:45:48. > :45:54.councillor, trying to establish a refuge provision. I was invited from

:45:55. > :46:00.the council I was unimpressed and to go and speak to senior members at

:46:01. > :46:06.Chorley Council and the then leader of Chorley Council finished the

:46:07. > :46:13.meeting by saying he was absolutely appalled that men in Preston behaved

:46:14. > :46:19.like this, because, of course, they didn't in Chorley. Another

:46:20. > :46:25.councillor came to speak to me and said her son-in-law has embarrassed

:46:26. > :46:37.her and her daughter had complained of being a victim and the daughters

:46:38. > :46:47.father would not believe that a barrister could behave like this. --

:46:48. > :46:52.her son was a barrister. The wide range of areas this can come from.

:46:53. > :46:59.Magister mine house, that interruption should be very brief. I

:47:00. > :47:08.am grateful for that interruption. I was about to say that one often

:47:09. > :47:12.hears that it does not happen here. The lack of understanding,

:47:13. > :47:18.understanding that what is happening is a crime, is very sadly shared

:47:19. > :47:26.among those who experience that crime. My Lords, I am a member of

:47:27. > :47:35.the joint committee on human rights which, in 2015, undertook an enquiry

:47:36. > :47:45.to examine progress towards ratification in the noble Baroness

:47:46. > :47:48.referred to that. Its report told Lordships that the convention would

:47:49. > :47:54.have a strong, indirect effect on the UK legal system, firstly in that

:47:55. > :48:02.it could be cited by the UK courts as persuasive authority and secondly

:48:03. > :48:10.through the role of the European Court of Human Rights, given that

:48:11. > :48:14.the government is bound by its judgment and, therefore, the terms

:48:15. > :48:26.of the convention could have a strong, indirect effect on the UK

:48:27. > :48:33.legal system. The report also commented on some of the evidence

:48:34. > :48:42.that it had obtained. Witnesses had told the committee that ratification

:48:43. > :48:44.would help the UK's position internationally in tackling violence

:48:45. > :48:50.against women and girls and would encourage other countries to follow

:48:51. > :48:59.suit. The bar human rights committee of England and will said that

:49:00. > :49:03.ratification would emphasise the state 's positive duty and it would

:49:04. > :49:06.provide a further basis in law for those who wished to persuade the

:49:07. > :49:12.state to provide adequate and meaningful resources to construct an

:49:13. > :49:18.effective mechanism to protect women from gender violence and harm. That,

:49:19. > :49:26.of course, does raise the question, is that a resource issue behind this

:49:27. > :49:31.which may not have been acknowledged in the same way as the concerns

:49:32. > :49:37.about the devolved institutions. I hope that the Minister can assure us

:49:38. > :49:48.that there is not a devolved resource component to this

:49:49. > :49:56.precluding ratification. The evidence from the Minister to the

:49:57. > :50:06.committee referred to the ratification being a matter for the

:50:07. > :50:12.devolved administrations. Let us not seek to avoid any responsibility

:50:13. > :50:30.ourselves in that area. The governments response to the report

:50:31. > :50:42.was to emphasise its commitment to the convention, but again to refer

:50:43. > :50:47.to the devolved administrations. The International context is something

:50:48. > :50:55.that we have heard about, and we have also heard that it is not just

:50:56. > :50:59.a third World issue. Real commitment would put all the mechanisms in

:51:00. > :51:04.place and it would be a considerable achievement of Her Majesty 's

:51:05. > :51:09.government, both to be able to ratify the Convention and actually

:51:10. > :51:17.to ratify it. It would be a solid expression of its commitment to

:51:18. > :51:21.preventing and combating violence against women and domestic pile in.

:51:22. > :51:26.If you like, it would put the country's legislation where its

:51:27. > :51:33.mouth is. -- domestic violence. The UK is in a good position to ratify,

:51:34. > :51:38.according to the J CHR. The then Home Secretary showed her personal

:51:39. > :51:49.commitment and only a single legislative change is required. Last

:51:50. > :51:57.year the JCHR visited Strasbourg and I remember a member of the Council

:51:58. > :52:02.of Europe emphasising very strongly the importance of the UK 's example.

:52:03. > :52:11.The context was different, we were talking about compliance with the

:52:12. > :52:17.judgment of the court and a different issue, but the same

:52:18. > :52:23.message, and that is the examples set by a country which is respected

:52:24. > :52:30.and use respect needs to be maintained. From these benches we

:52:31. > :52:34.support the bill. My Lords, it is a pleasure and privilege to make a

:52:35. > :52:38.brief response from the opposition front bench. I congratulate my noble

:52:39. > :52:41.friend for bringing forward this bill and for her excellent opening

:52:42. > :52:45.speech that made the case so compelling that I challenge the

:52:46. > :52:50.Minister to resist in any way at all. I would like to take a moment

:52:51. > :52:53.to congratulate my honourable friend for a lifetime of campaigning for

:52:54. > :52:58.women and girls throughout political history and to say what an

:52:59. > :53:01.inspiration she is to so many of us on these benches. It has been a

:53:02. > :53:06.delight to hear speeches from almost all around the house, particular for

:53:07. > :53:10.the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who made such an important contribution

:53:11. > :53:14.to the legal position to the position of women with that

:53:15. > :53:17.ground-breaking ruling. I also congratulate him to turn up and

:53:18. > :53:23.stand up and speak up for his benches on the men who support this.

:53:24. > :53:28.I look forward to the Conservative benches being just as encouraging

:53:29. > :53:32.when the minister gets up to speak. I am pleased to say from these

:53:33. > :53:36.benches that I fully support this bill and it has the full support of

:53:37. > :53:42.the official opposition and the Labour Party had confirmed that in

:53:43. > :53:45.government we would ratify the Istanbul convention. Violence

:53:46. > :53:49.against women and girls should be a priority in any society and we are

:53:50. > :53:52.completely committed to ensure that women and girls can have safe and

:53:53. > :53:56.secure lives wherever they live and whatever they choose to do. Sarah

:53:57. > :54:00.Champion said in another place, ending violence against women and

:54:01. > :54:04.girls requires a radical seismic societal shift in power and

:54:05. > :54:09.attitudes. This bill may be a small contribution but it is a very

:54:10. > :54:13.important one and it shows our partnership can -- parliament can

:54:14. > :54:16.play in tackling that challenge. We had a catalogue of appalling

:54:17. > :54:22.violence, explained by the Bishop of Saint all buttons and the noble and

:54:23. > :54:30.learned it Lord of Eaton under Heywood. As my noble friend Lady

:54:31. > :54:35.Gale, the reason to understand that this violence is perpetrated against

:54:36. > :54:38.women and girls, it is gendered violence, and it is not an accident

:54:39. > :54:42.that such a disproportionate amount of it is directed against women and

:54:43. > :54:46.girls. It is the context in which atoms which is global inequality,

:54:47. > :54:51.and inequality of power and an inequality of access to the levers

:54:52. > :54:54.of power. We need to understand that there is a connection between that

:54:55. > :54:58.even in our own society. We are still in a permission where we have

:54:59. > :55:06.a female Prime Minister but only other seven other women in their

:55:07. > :55:09.cabinet and 29% of MPs are women and we recently saw the celebrations

:55:10. > :55:13.went on, finally won a by-election just before Christmas meant as many

:55:14. > :55:16.women had been elected to the other place in history as were sitting on

:55:17. > :55:20.that day. In this house only 26% of us are women and we are making

:55:21. > :55:24.progress but the reality is that the context here and elsewhere around

:55:25. > :55:27.the world means that we will have to take particular steps to address the

:55:28. > :55:34.challenge faced by women and girls and that is the context for this

:55:35. > :55:35.bill. That makes this convention, the Istanbul convention, so

:55:36. > :55:47.important. Is a unique grand pacing piece of

:55:48. > :55:50.legislation which offers an international framework for tackling

:55:51. > :55:55.violence against women and girls -- unique ground-breaking. So I hope

:55:56. > :55:59.they will be telling us they will give this bill affaires wind and

:56:00. > :56:02.that we will hear from them a timetable for ratification of the

:56:03. > :56:05.convention and that there will be a time and they can change the house

:56:06. > :56:10.what changes will be needed to ratify it and I look forward to

:56:11. > :56:14.hearing about this. But also as the bill will cut across powers, I

:56:15. > :56:19.wonder if the Minister could tell the house what discussions the

:56:20. > :56:22.government has had with devolved administrations regarding

:56:23. > :56:26.implementing this? This provides us with a step we need to take a key

:56:27. > :56:30.move forward in the battle to eliminate violence against women and

:56:31. > :56:37.girls and I hope the House and the government give this wholehearted

:56:38. > :56:42.support. My Lords, may I take a moment to thank the noble ladies are

:56:43. > :56:46.taking this bill through the House and for the very constructive

:56:47. > :56:58.conversation we have have this week. -- lady. May at -- may I also single

:56:59. > :57:04.out special praise. It is always nice to hear men come in on a debate

:57:05. > :57:08.which is mainly about women. I would like to say at this moment that the

:57:09. > :57:13.government has given its full backing to this bill and we wholly

:57:14. > :57:19.support its aim of making sure that we deliver on our commitment to

:57:20. > :57:22.ratifying the Istanbul convention. We all recognise that violence is

:57:23. > :57:28.still far too prevalent in our society today. And that women still

:57:29. > :57:33.face much higher risk of gender-based violence than men.

:57:34. > :57:37.Physical, sexual and domestic abuse affects women are disproportionately

:57:38. > :57:41.and that is the stark reality, I'm afraid. We'll so know that many of

:57:42. > :57:48.these crimes remain unreported -- we also know. We spoke about this in

:57:49. > :57:54.questions yesterday, leaving victims to suffer in silence, and

:57:55. > :57:58.perpetrators escaping justice. Our commitment to ratifying the Istanbul

:57:59. > :58:02.convention, not only shows how seriously this government is taking

:58:03. > :58:06.its responsibility to make sure that all victims are supported and that

:58:07. > :58:10.perpetrators are brought to justice, but also our ongoing commitment to

:58:11. > :58:15.strengthening international cooperation in this field which is

:58:16. > :58:19.vital. My Lords this government has put prevention at the heart of our

:58:20. > :58:26.approach, and we have significantly strengthened the law since we first

:58:27. > :58:32.published our first call to end violence in 2010, as the right

:58:33. > :58:38.reverend the Bishop of St Albans has pointed out. We have criminalised

:58:39. > :58:44.forced marriages in England and Wales and have a forced marriage

:58:45. > :58:49.order in protection. The right reverend brought up an interesting

:58:50. > :58:54.point about the issue of forced marriages and girls being taken out

:58:55. > :58:57.of the UK for this reason. The joint Home Office and Foreign and

:58:58. > :59:07.Commonwealth Office, they provide that support and advice to victims.

:59:08. > :59:12.The most recent statistics were published yesterday in fact and they

:59:13. > :59:22.showed that in 2016 advice or support was provided in 1428 cases.

:59:23. > :59:31.371 of those, 26%, involved under 18 's and the unit handled cases

:59:32. > :59:36.relating to 60... Sorry to break in. I was making a different point. I'm

:59:37. > :59:41.grateful to have those statistics, but the question is we don't have

:59:42. > :59:44.any proactive way of trying to work out, for example, people going

:59:45. > :59:49.through immigration, to find out more information, it is simply an

:59:50. > :59:54.unknown problem and that is what I was trying to push in. Could you

:59:55. > :00:01.comment on that. You make a very good point. About how do we actually

:00:02. > :00:06.as opposed to being reactive about these things, be proactive, and one

:00:07. > :00:10.of the things that we have made significant steps in doing over the

:00:11. > :00:16.last new months and years, is over our intelligence at the border,

:00:17. > :00:22.training border staff to look for what may be issues of either people

:00:23. > :00:26.trafficking or forced marriages, there are a host of things that

:00:27. > :00:33.immigration is looking at that actually prevents some of these

:00:34. > :00:40.things from happening. I'm glad that the right reverend brought that up.

:00:41. > :00:42.We have fast tracked in addition to that, female genital mutilation

:00:43. > :00:49.protection orders and we have introduced a new mandatory reporting

:00:50. > :00:53.duty for FGM. We have strength and legislation on stalking, creating

:00:54. > :00:59.two new offences and we have improved training regarding stalking

:01:00. > :01:03.for those who come into contact with victims and we have also introduced

:01:04. > :01:06.a new stalking protection order with criminal sanctions to help protect

:01:07. > :01:14.victims at the earliest possible opportunity. The rape action plan

:01:15. > :01:18.launched in 2014 and led by the Crown Prosecution Service and the

:01:19. > :01:22.National policing lead for rape is making sure that every report of

:01:23. > :01:26.rape is treated seriously and every victim is given the help they

:01:27. > :01:36.deserve. And we have protected funding for rape support services at

:01:37. > :01:41.current levels in 2016, 2017, providing independent specialist

:01:42. > :01:46.support. We have also strengthened the law on domestic violence with a

:01:47. > :01:49.new offence of domestic abuse which covers controlling and coercive

:01:50. > :01:58.behaviour and another thing we touched upon on Wednesday at

:01:59. > :02:01.questions, the new offence protects victims who would otherwise be

:02:02. > :02:07.subjected to sustained patterns of abuse that can lead to total control

:02:08. > :02:10.of their lives by the perpetrator, some of them not actually even

:02:11. > :02:16.knowing that this is happening to them. Another thing we discussed.

:02:17. > :02:21.And the new domestic violence protection order and the domestic

:02:22. > :02:27.violence disclosure scheme has also been rolled out across England and

:02:28. > :02:31.Wales. This is alongside the work of the government to continue reforming

:02:32. > :02:34.front line agency 's response. It is vital that victims have the

:02:35. > :02:37.confidence to report these crimes knowing they will get the support

:02:38. > :02:42.they need and that everything will be done to bring offenders to

:02:43. > :02:50.justice. The UK continues to be a global leader in its efforts to

:02:51. > :02:55.tackle this and our changes to domestic law are supporting a

:02:56. > :02:59.stronger international framework, the Istanbul convention highlights

:03:00. > :03:02.the need for more regional and international cooperation and while

:03:03. > :03:05.there is no one size fits all model, the measures within the convention

:03:06. > :03:10.will make sure that more of the action is taken through legally

:03:11. > :03:15.binding and harmonised standards. In most respects the measures already

:03:16. > :03:18.in place in the UK to protect women and girls from violence comply or go

:03:19. > :03:23.further than the Convention requires. But before we ratify the

:03:24. > :03:29.convention we must make sure that we are fully compliant with it. There

:03:30. > :03:35.is one outstanding issue regarding introducing extraterritorial

:03:36. > :03:38.jurisdiction or even extraterrestrials jurisdiction which

:03:39. > :03:44.needs to be addressed before we will consider it to be compliant. We

:03:45. > :03:50.already have the TJ over some of the offences -- E TJ over some of the

:03:51. > :03:56.offences, including forced marriages and FGM, but there is still a number

:03:57. > :04:06.of offences including rape of an over 18, sexual assault and domestic

:04:07. > :04:11.violence. We need to fully comply with the requirements in Article 44

:04:12. > :04:15.of the convention. This will require primary legislation to be introduced

:04:16. > :04:20.in England and Wales as well as Scotland and Northern Ireland. We

:04:21. > :04:24.are working closely with ministerial colleagues to progress this issue

:04:25. > :04:27.and as the Prime Minister has signalled, we will explore all

:04:28. > :04:33.options to bring the necessary legislation forward. I think it was

:04:34. > :04:38.the noble lady who asked about the devolved administrations and we are

:04:39. > :04:52.in regular contact with them on this bill and the Istanbul convention.

:04:53. > :04:55.The bill places agency on the government to lay a report before

:04:56. > :05:04.Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after this bill comes

:05:05. > :05:08.into force. As well as the timescale within which ratification is

:05:09. > :05:11.expected and it also requires the government to lay the annual report

:05:12. > :05:17.before Parliament on progress towards ratification. I recognise

:05:18. > :05:21.that noble Lords want some assurance that we will continue to update

:05:22. > :05:25.Parliament on the ongoing compliance with the convention,

:05:26. > :05:30.post-ratification. As with the other Council of Europe treaties and the

:05:31. > :05:37.baroness did actually asked a question about Brexit, in this

:05:38. > :05:41.regard, it is a Council of Europe treaty, so this is independent of

:05:42. > :05:50.the European Union. Functions on processes and it won't affect

:05:51. > :05:57.Brexit. Once it has been ratified we will be required to submit regular

:05:58. > :06:02.reports to the Council of Europe on compliance and the reports will

:06:03. > :06:05.contain detailed information. It will mention the role of civil

:06:06. > :06:09.society organisations to addressing these crimes and regarding

:06:10. > :06:14.prosecutions and convictions and we will make sure that both houses have

:06:15. > :06:22.sight of these reports. The group of experts on action of violence

:06:23. > :06:28.against women and domestic violence, the independent expert body monitors

:06:29. > :06:31.the convention, will scrutinise the report and then prepare their own

:06:32. > :06:37.report with recommendations and the report will also be available for

:06:38. > :06:40.parliamentary and public scrutiny. The government is pleased to support

:06:41. > :06:44.this bill and its aims of making sure that we formally demonstrate to

:06:45. > :06:48.Parliament the progress that we make to deliver against our commitment to

:06:49. > :06:52.ratify the convention. We have made progress in tackling this but we are

:06:53. > :06:56.not complacent. We know that there is more to do to make sure that

:06:57. > :07:02.victims of terrible crimes get the support they need. Across government

:07:03. > :07:06.strategy published last March, setup the ambition that by the end of this

:07:07. > :07:12.Parliament no victim of abuse is turned away from the support they

:07:13. > :07:20.need. The strategy is underpinned by increased funding of ?80 million and

:07:21. > :07:23.this includes the Home Office's ?15 million, three-year violence against

:07:24. > :07:27.women and girl fun, to promote and embed the best local practices and

:07:28. > :07:31.make sure that early intervention and prevention becomes the norm. The

:07:32. > :07:37.Chancellor's Spring statement has announced an additional ?20 million

:07:38. > :07:40.for victims of domestic abuse. This funding will help to deliver our

:07:41. > :07:45.goal to work with local commissioners to deliver a secure

:07:46. > :07:49.future for rape support centres, refugees and FGM and forced marriage

:07:50. > :07:52.unit, and driving a major change across all services so that early

:07:53. > :07:57.intervention and prevention is the norm. Furthermore to make sure that

:07:58. > :08:03.all victims get the right support at the right time, we have set out a

:08:04. > :08:07.clear blueprint for local action through the national statement of

:08:08. > :08:12.expectations and this sets out what local areas need to do to prevent

:08:13. > :08:15.offending and support victims and it will encourage organisations to work

:08:16. > :08:22.with local commissioners to disseminate this and support

:08:23. > :08:27.implementation of best practice. We have also recently announced some

:08:28. > :08:33.key measures which will further strengthen the response. A major new

:08:34. > :08:37.programme of work on domestic abuse has been announced by the Prime

:08:38. > :08:40.Minister. This cross governmental work is being co-ordinated by the

:08:41. > :08:44.Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary and will look at

:08:45. > :08:48.legislative and non-legislative options to improve support for

:08:49. > :08:55.victims. The measures that come out of this will encourage victims to

:08:56. > :09:00.run >> STUDIO: -- to report their abuses and further raise public

:09:01. > :09:03.awareness. We have announced that sex education will be put on a

:09:04. > :09:10.statutory footing so that every child has access to age-appropriate

:09:11. > :09:13.provision in a consistent way. And the Department for Education will be

:09:14. > :09:19.consulting on making PS H E statutory. We must continue to

:09:20. > :09:22.challenge the many forms of discrimination that women still face

:09:23. > :09:28.and make sure that we make this everyone's business. We all have our

:09:29. > :09:32.part to play in protecting women and girls from violence and I very much

:09:33. > :09:33.hope and feel that you noble Lords will join me in supporting this

:09:34. > :09:45.bill. I would like to thank all noble

:09:46. > :09:50.members of the House today, I'll get this right. Thank you all very much

:09:51. > :09:57.indeed for taking part. I would specially like to thank the noble

:09:58. > :10:00.and learned Lord Brown for his contribution and again to thank him

:10:01. > :10:07.for all the wonderful work he has done in this field. And to the right

:10:08. > :10:12.Reverend again for speaking about his experiences listening to women

:10:13. > :10:18.who have suffered from domestic violence and bringing that to your

:10:19. > :10:23.Lordship's House. I mention our two male peers who took part because we

:10:24. > :10:29.need women and men taking part in this. It isn't an issue just for

:10:30. > :10:37.women as the noble Lord's have pointed out. Again I'd like to thank

:10:38. > :10:43.the noble Baroness for her support of this and talk about her

:10:44. > :10:48.experience in this field as well. And for the work on the Joint

:10:49. > :10:53.Committee on Human Rights and speaking about how that committee

:10:54. > :10:58.wants to ratify the Istanbul convention. I was interested in my

:10:59. > :11:01.noble friend's intervention that some people think it doesn't happen

:11:02. > :11:06.in their area. We know it happens everywhere. It happens in every

:11:07. > :11:09.county in England, Wales, Scotland and in the whole world actually.

:11:10. > :11:15.There's no country free from it. That is why it's really important

:11:16. > :11:21.that we take action. I would like to thank my noble friend again for the

:11:22. > :11:26.Opposition support for this bill. So there is support right across the

:11:27. > :11:31.House on hiss. I thank the minister for her support for the bill. I'm

:11:32. > :11:36.sure working together, with other members, we going to get this

:11:37. > :11:40.through. I look forward to working with her and I'm sure that in

:11:41. > :11:46.getting this bill through your Lordship's house that she will make

:11:47. > :11:51.sure that, working together, should keep my feet firmly on the ground

:11:52. > :11:56.and that bill does not end up in outer space. I'm really looking

:11:57. > :12:01.forward to that. I know we're going to get the compliance because the

:12:02. > :12:05.Government seems to be determined to do that. I thank the minister for

:12:06. > :12:11.her cooperation and I would now ask the House to gay the bill a second

:12:12. > :12:20.reading. -- to give the bill a second reading. As man of that

:12:21. > :12:26.opinion should say content. The contents have it.

:12:27. > :12:30.My Lord I move that this bill be committed to a committee of the

:12:31. > :12:36.whole House. As many of that opinion say content. To the contrary not

:12:37. > :12:39.content. The contents have it. Second reading of the political

:12:40. > :12:47.parties funding and expenditure bill. My Lord's, I beg to move this

:12:48. > :12:51.bill be read a second time. I must confess that I'm very surprised,

:12:52. > :12:56.pleasantly surprised of course, to be in a position to move the second

:12:57. > :13:01.reading of the bill. Had there not been a fill buster in the other

:13:02. > :13:04.place two weeks ago, I would have no chance to set out the merits of our

:13:05. > :13:09.proposal today, and that would have been the last opportunity for this

:13:10. > :13:13.session. My Lord's, I say "our" proposals, since this bill is based

:13:14. > :13:20.on the cross-party draft published in April 2013 by a small group

:13:21. > :13:25.comprising Andrew Tyrie MP, very distinguished member of the other

:13:26. > :13:29.place who's worked so hard on this issue and Alan Whitehead a very well

:13:30. > :13:34.respected Labour MP and myself. I'm hugely grateful for their time and

:13:35. > :13:40.their commitment, but the current bill has, for obvious reasons, been

:13:41. > :13:44.updated since then, so that they cannot be held responsible for all

:13:45. > :13:49.its details. My Lord's I should also record that the really hard work for

:13:50. > :13:51.the original draft was undertaken by a professional Parliamentary

:13:52. > :13:57.draftsperson under the supervision of our principal advisor Alex Davis,

:13:58. > :14:01.with the support of the GCSE receive Rountree reform -- Joseph Rowntree

:14:02. > :14:05.trust. The contribution of Alex to the process has been invaluable. The

:14:06. > :14:10.bill is as much his as it is now. I should record that it seeks to

:14:11. > :14:17.fulfil the objectives of the report by the committee on standards?

:14:18. > :14:21.Public life pub -- stands in publish life. I am delighted that the

:14:22. > :14:24.current chairman, who has down so much to clarify the problems and

:14:25. > :14:30.possible solutions intends to speak today. The current bill drafted

:14:31. > :14:36.nearly a year ago now, updates the previous proposals to reflect the

:14:37. > :14:43.various manifesto commitments of all the main parties to take big money

:14:44. > :14:48.out of British politics. And to regularise the constraints of both

:14:49. > :14:53.party donations and campaign expenditure. The delay in obtaining

:14:54. > :14:58.this debate, my Lord's, has two fortuitous, huge benefits. First,

:14:59. > :15:04.I'm delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Young, is to respond since he

:15:05. > :15:07.and I have debated together and often worked together over some 55

:15:08. > :15:11.years. He may not care to be reminded of this. I hope it's too

:15:12. > :15:17.late to affect his career, but it has been a very happy cooperation on

:15:18. > :15:21.several occasions. My Lord's, if this debate had taken place earlier

:15:22. > :15:25.in the session he might have still been enjoying well earned retirement

:15:26. > :15:28.on the backbenches. But he's here today and I'm delighted. Mowerover,

:15:29. > :15:33.my Lord's, unlike so many colleagues, he comes to the

:15:34. > :15:37.Government dispatch box with a great deal of experience of election

:15:38. > :15:43.contests, several more than mine and very many more successful than mine.

:15:44. > :15:46.He is uniquely placed to respond positively to this debate. My

:15:47. > :15:50.Lord's, secondly, in the last few weeks, there have been several

:15:51. > :15:54.developments which add to the urgency of a review of the law

:15:55. > :15:58.relating to political funding, both in relation to the extent to which

:15:59. > :16:06.millionaires dominate the income of all parties and the way in which,

:16:07. > :16:11.and the way in which opportunities are found to circumnavigate the long

:16:12. > :16:16.established restraints of campaign funding. This debate is all the more

:16:17. > :16:18.timely and topical for that. For example, I immediately concede, my

:16:19. > :16:25.Lord's, that the bill does not, since it was prepared over a year

:16:26. > :16:30.ago, adequately cover the special circumstances of referendums or

:16:31. > :16:36.referenda, if you prefer. You will be aware of the recent revelations

:16:37. > :16:45.in the Observer newspaper examiner the role of the American billionaire

:16:46. > :16:49.Robert Mercer and his interests in Cambridge alalityca and vote leave

:16:50. > :16:53.campaign last year. Despite attempted explanations that this

:16:54. > :16:59.company, which assisted the Trump campaign to target swing voters at a

:17:00. > :17:04.cost of more than $6 million, did not work in British politics Mr

:17:05. > :17:10.Aaron Banks suggests otherwise. He said last month that Cambridge

:17:11. > :17:14.analytical was "world class, had helped the Leave campaign with

:17:15. > :17:19.unprecedented levels of engagement and claimed that their artificial

:17:20. > :17:25.intelligence won it for Leave." One of the employees of this company had

:17:26. > :17:30.previously appeared at a Leave EU press conference to explain the

:17:31. > :17:37.technology that was being employed in their campaign. The Observer

:17:38. > :17:47.reports that Cambridge analytical "declined to comment last week on

:17:48. > :17:54.whether it had (inaudible) As members here will know all donations

:17:55. > :17:59.of services in kind worth ?7,500 must be reported to the Electoral

:18:00. > :18:05.Commission and no such submission was made. Here my Lord's is a clear

:18:06. > :18:08.case for the commission to be empowered to examine again the issue

:18:09. > :18:14.of valuable benefits in kind and to act to prevent abuse. I come to a

:18:15. > :18:19.second example of potential abuse. The guardian on February 24 reported

:18:20. > :18:24.on the curious case of the referendum campaign expenditure by

:18:25. > :18:33.the DUP, which was wholly and completely spent on the mainland of

:18:34. > :18:40.Great Britain. We now know that the DUP had an anonymous donation of

:18:41. > :18:45.?280,000 for advertising wrap around Metro, by far its biggest single

:18:46. > :18:52.contribution to the Leave campaign. And Metro does not circulate in

:18:53. > :18:55.Northern Ireland. The rules on political donations transparency

:18:56. > :19:00.were not extended to the province in 2000, for very special reasons.

:19:01. > :19:03.Those reasons may not apply now, and they should surely be revisited. The

:19:04. > :19:09.practical result of this deefs action has been to create an

:19:10. > :19:14.apparent case of political money laundering. I hope the ministers and

:19:15. > :19:17.commission will agree this potential abuse should not be permitted to

:19:18. > :19:21.continue and increase and the latter must be given powers in legislation

:19:22. > :19:26.to tackle it. Together, my Lord's, these two examples result in the

:19:27. > :19:30.Leave campaign standing accused not only of lying in the substance of

:19:31. > :19:35.their campaign, but cheating in the process of delivering it. My third

:19:36. > :19:39.example is even more urgent and topical because the trend I will

:19:40. > :19:45.identify is inSidious and undermines one of the most vital features of

:19:46. > :19:50.our representative democracy. Since 1883, there have been firm rules to

:19:51. > :19:54.prevent individuals and organisations from pouring excessive

:19:55. > :20:00.sums of money into the constituency campaigns to secure the election of

:20:01. > :20:04.individual candidates, to prevent the purchase of MPs, if you like.

:20:05. > :20:09.All the elections here contested I'm sure that the noble Lord, Lord

:20:10. > :20:16.Young, will have been reminded that every single penny spent to secure

:20:17. > :20:19.his success is restricted by law. It must be observed rigorously and

:20:20. > :20:23.reported or he could end up in court. A number of other members of

:20:24. > :20:29.your Lordship's House stood for election to the other place and I'm

:20:30. > :20:35.sure they were reminded by their agents at regular intervals about

:20:36. > :20:40.expenditure at any sum to secure election. Over recent years,

:20:41. > :20:44.however, an ever increasing percentage of the investment in

:20:45. > :20:49.target seats has come from the various national party campaign

:20:50. > :20:53.funds with hugely different and higher permitted totals. All parties

:20:54. > :21:01.have seen this as an obvious way to increase their chances of success in

:21:02. > :21:04.those constituencies, while dodging the long established local financial

:21:05. > :21:10.constraints. My Lord, in recent weeks, we've all been endeaded to

:21:11. > :21:13.Michael Crick and Channel 4 for their determined investigative

:21:14. > :21:18.journalism on this issue. Personally I regret that the BBC has appeared

:21:19. > :21:23.to be prepared to leave it to rivals, to their rivals, to fill

:21:24. > :21:34.this important role. However, the Times has covered this issue

:21:35. > :21:41.extensively. In its issue of March 4, under the headline, "election

:21:42. > :21:47.fraud Queenery rocks Number Ten", and then there was a considerable

:21:48. > :21:51.interest that followed on from that. World media attention has fizzed

:21:52. > :21:56.round these cases, the official response has been positively

:21:57. > :22:00.pedestrian. My Lord's, outrageously, these matters have been allowed to

:22:01. > :22:07.drag on for more than 20 months. Quite apart from anything else, this

:22:08. > :22:10.has been hanging over heads of individual MPs, and a number of

:22:11. > :22:16.them, whose whole political career could be at risk. It is surely

:22:17. > :22:20.absurd for so many individual police forces, many of whom may never have

:22:21. > :22:25.undertaken any similar investigation to have to learn afresh the way in

:22:26. > :22:31.which campaign funding is restricted by law. So that is why clause 23 of

:22:32. > :22:36.our bill makes provision for the Electoral Commission to be empowered

:22:37. > :22:41.in this key role of ensuring compliance with all the expenditure

:22:42. > :22:49.limits in election law. Meanwhile, clause 19 of our bill sets out

:22:50. > :22:52.clearly a way to circumscribe a growing abuse of our electoral

:22:53. > :22:56.legislation. Subsection three of that clause, the only part of the

:22:57. > :23:00.bill I intend to quote directly this afternoon, it reads, "No more than

:23:01. > :23:08.1% of the amounts specified in subsection two may be incurred by

:23:09. > :23:12.represented registered party for the purposes of A, sending unsolicited

:23:13. > :23:18.material, falling within paragraph four of sedge you'll one -- schedule

:23:19. > :23:23.one, addressed to any person registered or entitled to be

:23:24. > :23:26.registered in the register of Parliamentary electors for any

:23:27. > :23:29.Parliamentary constituency, B, making unsolicited telephone calls

:23:30. > :23:34.to such persons. To be clear, this means that only 1% of the overall

:23:35. > :23:40.national preparer limit could be spent in any one constituency on the

:23:41. > :23:44.two campaign methods which are denone strabl targeted. A letter or

:23:45. > :23:48.telephone call to an elector in a home, in a constituency cannot be

:23:49. > :23:53.said to be doing other than influencing the result in that

:23:54. > :24:00.particular constituency. It's one of the features of our electoral system

:24:01. > :24:03.that there is no national result, nor a regional result, only

:24:04. > :24:07.constituency results. What we are suggesting may not prevent all the

:24:08. > :24:13.present cunning attempts to bypass the law, not least with the Advent

:24:14. > :24:17.of targeted social media advertising, but it would be a good

:24:18. > :24:21.start. And if the Government took on this cross-party bill, they could

:24:22. > :24:26.certainly make it more comprehensive, for example, dealing

:24:27. > :24:31.with the deployment of central party staff and the bus loads of activists

:24:32. > :24:35.to marginal seats. I don't know whether the noble Lord reads the

:24:36. > :24:38.Daily Mail every morning, but I'm sure his department has drawn his

:24:39. > :24:45.attention to page two of that newspaper this morning, possibly

:24:46. > :24:49.also he saw Channel 4 last night, that is very relevant. I'm very

:24:50. > :24:52.competent and well aware of the recent extensive, excellently

:24:53. > :24:55.prepared and fair recommendations of the Electoral Commission that their

:24:56. > :25:01.expert advice to be available to ministers. I have a summary of

:25:02. > :25:06.relevant recent Electoral Commission statements which I won't propose to

:25:07. > :25:07.read out now, but I'm sure the noble Lord the minister is well aware of

:25:08. > :25:14.them. The Times article was accompanied by

:25:15. > :25:19.a leading article which concluded the spending rules exist for good

:25:20. > :25:23.reasons. They make sure that constituency candidates face each

:25:24. > :25:30.other on a level playing field, fiddling expenses undermines not

:25:31. > :25:34.just the result, but the public's face in the institutions of

:25:35. > :25:40.Parliament. Above all the electoral process must be seen to be honest

:25:41. > :25:48.and above reproach. I wholeheartedly agree and I hope that the noble Lord

:25:49. > :25:54.will do so, to. My Lords, I readily acknowledge that the likelihood of

:25:55. > :25:59.any further progress for our cross-party bill at this time is

:26:00. > :26:08.precisely zero. However, help is at hand. Members of the house will

:26:09. > :26:12.recall the crucial recommendations regarding trade union political

:26:13. > :26:16.funds and political party funding. I'm proud to admit that I originally

:26:17. > :26:20.suggested the creation of that select committee and then served on

:26:21. > :26:24.it. Our report published just over a year ago referred to the

:26:25. > :26:29.Conservative 2015 election manifesto as follows, to seek agreement on a

:26:30. > :26:34.comprehensive package of party funded reform. And then our report

:26:35. > :26:40.included one very important recommendation, approved

:26:41. > :26:44.unanimously. Whether or not clause ten is enacted in whatever form, the

:26:45. > :26:49.political parties should live up to their manifesto commitments and make

:26:50. > :26:55.a renewed and urgent effort to seek a comprehensive agreement on party

:26:56. > :27:01.funding reform, and it went on, we urge the government to take a

:27:02. > :27:08.decisive lead and convened talks itself rather than waiting for them

:27:09. > :27:12.to emerge. We accepted the select committee's report and the trade

:27:13. > :27:15.union Bill was amended, but we waited in vain for the government's

:27:16. > :27:21.response to this crucial recommendation. At long last before

:27:22. > :27:27.Christmas, Christmas Eve, I think, six months beyond the convention

:27:28. > :27:31.limit, Chris Skidmore Parliamentary undersecretary wrote to our

:27:32. > :27:33.committee chairman, in his memorandum setting up the

:27:34. > :27:40.government's response largely ignored this recommendation and

:27:41. > :27:49.failed completely to reiterate the 2015 Conservative manifesto, but

:27:50. > :27:55.instead stated boldly that this -- despite this cross-party consensus,

:27:56. > :27:59.there is no broad consensus at this time. I'm not sure how he has

:28:00. > :28:05.arrived at this view, because in advance of convening talks. I

:28:06. > :28:07.suspect it might be that the Conservatives just don't want to

:28:08. > :28:15.find a consensus. However, he went on to promise, the government is

:28:16. > :28:17.open to constructive debate and dialogue on small-scale measures

:28:18. > :28:22.which could command broad support, if there was a positive reaction to

:28:23. > :28:31.such a potential step from a main political party, but let me repeat.

:28:32. > :28:36.A positive reaction. I don't know Chris Skidmore, but I'm sure that

:28:37. > :28:40.Lord Young will concur with me that the team in the cabinet off is

:28:41. > :28:48.always chooses their words with extreme care. It is impossible to

:28:49. > :28:52.have a reaction, positive or otherwise, without having an action

:28:53. > :28:59.to react to. There must be something to react to. Therefore I'd take it

:29:00. > :29:02.that the government is now ready to follow the recommendation of the

:29:03. > :29:08.select committee and to put some proposals to a cross-party group

:29:09. > :29:14.which they will convene. To meet the recommendation of the select

:29:15. > :29:18.committee, so warmly endorsed by your membership's house committee

:29:19. > :29:21.may be that the Minister will outline these proposals this

:29:22. > :29:24.afternoon. I've always been told that the afternoon is when the Mace

:29:25. > :29:30.hits the wharf site, that the afternoon starts.

:29:31. > :29:39.In any case, in this House and those from across the House, who agreed

:29:40. > :29:42.unanimously to these recommendations, several of whom I'm

:29:43. > :29:46.delighted to see here today, will now look to the government to

:29:47. > :29:49.initiate these talks immediately with a view to taking this further

:29:50. > :29:55.in the Queen's Speech and the new session. The Prime Minister came to

:29:56. > :29:59.office last year without the trouble of an election, and she must now

:30:00. > :30:06.pledged to lead a government which would be driven not by the interests

:30:07. > :30:08.of the privileged few. While donations and expenditure to

:30:09. > :30:14.election campaigns remains on reform, she simply cannot realise

:30:15. > :30:19.this ambition. A privileged few will continue to have privileged access

:30:20. > :30:23.to government and power. So before we get too close to another general

:30:24. > :30:32.election it is time, finally, to grasp this nettle. We who have

:30:33. > :30:36.worked on this cross-party bill, offer it as a practical starting

:30:37. > :30:42.point for cross-party discussions and for the legislation that must

:30:43. > :30:48.surely follow. I beg to move. The question is that this bill now be

:30:49. > :30:57.read a second time. I congratulate Lord Tyler in bringing forward this

:30:58. > :31:07.bill. I congratulate him especially... He spoke of the need

:31:08. > :31:11.to control big-money donations and I note in the week that his party

:31:12. > :31:20.leader has been extolling about $1 million >> STUDIO: -- about ?1

:31:21. > :31:29.million donation, exceeding that of the Labour Party. Anyone will not be

:31:30. > :31:32.surprised it is possible for the Liberal party leadership to be

:31:33. > :31:39.exalted in ?1 million donation at one end of Parliament while here

:31:40. > :31:43.they are being attacked. But despite all that, I complement the noble

:31:44. > :31:53.Lord Agassi is always very assiduous on these matters -- because he is

:31:54. > :31:56.always. A number of other matters deserve careful consideration, and

:31:57. > :32:01.there is a good case for gift aid and relation to personal political

:32:02. > :32:10.donations, especially at the local level, where political service in

:32:11. > :32:12.local communities actually at -- is objectively not much different from

:32:13. > :32:18.voluntary service for the public good. I must restrain myself because

:32:19. > :32:24.the cynic in me that sadly gnaws its way through my customary civility to

:32:25. > :32:29.the Liberal Democrats, does tempt me to say that some might see part one

:32:30. > :32:34.of schedule two in this bill which is entitled limits on campaign

:32:35. > :32:39.expenditure, and the noble Lord's own condemnation as he put it of

:32:40. > :32:44.bus-loads of activists being taken to elections. As perhaps a little

:32:45. > :32:51.rich in a bill which is being commended by the party opposite. But

:32:52. > :32:57.this being lent, I will restrain myself and I think we should all

:32:58. > :33:04.reflect on verse seven of chapter eight, I say this as the right

:33:05. > :33:12.reverend's benches empty, but chapters St John, let the party

:33:13. > :33:16.without sin cast the first stone. But the noble Lord referred to

:33:17. > :33:21.things which are not in the bill and I want to refer to things which I

:33:22. > :33:25.think are important. These are, the reception of donations that are

:33:26. > :33:33.later found to be the direct proceeds of crime, and secondly the

:33:34. > :33:37.risk of corrupt attempts to induce political party not to put up a

:33:38. > :33:44.candidate in an election. On the first point I'd take as my test case

:33:45. > :33:49.in the case of Michael Brown, convicted in 2008 hurt theft,

:33:50. > :33:55.furnishing false information and seeking to convert the course of

:33:56. > :34:02.justice -- for therefore the later broke jail as a fugitive from

:34:03. > :34:11.justice, but he donated ?2.4 million in just seven weeks to the Liberal

:34:12. > :34:16.Democrats in 2005. Before anyone says I have got on John, chapter

:34:17. > :34:18.seven, I would say that the Maxwell case and others show that all

:34:19. > :34:24.parties have encountered this problem. Let the party without sin

:34:25. > :34:30.cast the first stone. But I'd take the Brown, three wrongs do not make

:34:31. > :34:34.a right, and I focus on the ground case because it took place after the

:34:35. > :34:37.establishment of the electoral commission. And it clearly shows the

:34:38. > :34:45.inability of the commission to secure the return of donations which

:34:46. > :34:53.are the result of criminal enterprise, impermissible donation

:34:54. > :34:57.might be returned. If it was later found to be from the proceeds of

:34:58. > :35:01.crime. The only issue in law that the electoral commission campus you

:35:02. > :35:05.is whether the donation appeared reasonably to be their personal at

:35:06. > :35:12.the time it was given. -- to be permissible. And broadly that is

:35:13. > :35:15.whether it was incorporated in the UK and trading, and that is

:35:16. > :35:23.something that told in the very entertaining memoirs of the noble

:35:24. > :35:26.Lord, and always proud to plug the work of a former Richmond

:35:27. > :35:32.councillor, he says the Metropolitan special police special Branch told

:35:33. > :35:37.the Liberal Democrats at the time that fifth Ave partners were trading

:35:38. > :35:41.legitimately. It is therefore a material that it was later proved in

:35:42. > :35:47.court that the donating company was operating as a front for massive

:35:48. > :35:52.fraud. Paragraph 37 of the electoral commission's later report on this

:35:53. > :35:58.case implies that three donations to the Liberal Democrats, one of

:35:59. > :36:05.100,000, one of 151,000, and a third one of ?632,000, were money put into

:36:06. > :36:11.the company by default it would be investors which was flipped by Brown

:36:12. > :36:15.into political donations. Although the courts found that brown faced at

:36:16. > :36:19.least ?36 million from people who thought they were investing in a

:36:20. > :36:25.successful hedge fund, run by the son of a peer, and I never

:36:26. > :36:27.understand why people find it so beguiling when they are approached

:36:28. > :36:32.by someone who claims to be the son of a peer that they hand over their

:36:33. > :36:37.money. One individual hand it over ?8 million, very unfortunate, whose

:36:38. > :36:41.name is well known. But no action could be taken to recover the funds

:36:42. > :36:47.that were later found to be the proceeds of this criminal

:36:48. > :36:50.enterprise. One of Michael Brown's victims took the case to the

:36:51. > :36:54.Parliamentary ombudsman and he actually found against the electoral

:36:55. > :36:57.commission on certain grounds, negligence as he saw it,

:36:58. > :37:02.commissioned it not acceptable, those findings, and the matter was

:37:03. > :37:06.effectively closed. The party kept the money, as the Maxwell minute in

:37:07. > :37:12.the past was kept, and the victims lived with the loss -- the Maxwell

:37:13. > :37:15.money. There is a clear inequity, and I diverges between the treatment

:37:16. > :37:22.of what is found, albeit in good faith -- and a diverges. To be an

:37:23. > :37:27.impermissible donation at the time and one which is found later to come

:37:28. > :37:29.from criminal fraud. And I think if this bill goes forward to committee

:37:30. > :37:37.this issue really should be addressed. The second matter I wish

:37:38. > :37:44.to raise relates to the very murky affair of a ?250,000 donation

:37:45. > :37:51.offered by a still anonymous individual or company to the Green

:37:52. > :37:54.Party. In the context of discussion whether or not the Green Party

:37:55. > :38:00.should put up a candidate in the Richmond Park by-election and give a

:38:01. > :38:06.free run to the Liberal Democrats. Now, that this attempt at a donation

:38:07. > :38:12.was made is not tonight, my lords, quite the reverse. -- is not denied.

:38:13. > :38:18.Report from Kingston Green Party declares, and I quote, party staff

:38:19. > :38:23.added pressure to Kingston Green Party activists, saying in

:38:24. > :38:29.confidence that the party staff working for us to agree to stand

:38:30. > :38:34.down. This was because they would be serious but confidential

:38:35. > :38:38.implications for the National party, so serious that they could even

:38:39. > :38:44.affect the jobs of party staff. In the event that we did not do so. I

:38:45. > :38:50.continued the quote, later it was clarified by party staff, ostensibly

:38:51. > :38:54.on the instructions of a chief executive, that this related to the

:38:55. > :38:58.donation of some ?250,000 that was conditional on the party showing its

:38:59. > :39:06.seriousness about the progressive Alliance initiative. Between Green

:39:07. > :39:17.Party and the Liberal Democrats. The evidence of those... INAUDIBLE

:39:18. > :39:20.... A quarter of ?1 million, on offer, for the Green Party to not

:39:21. > :39:27.oppose the Liberal Democrats, either here or more widely. And this was

:39:28. > :39:31.not denied by the Green Party. Indeed it has been reported first

:39:32. > :39:39.that the central staff member did discuss the proposed donation with

:39:40. > :39:46.local party members, but this was an error. That is the usual excuse, my

:39:47. > :39:51.lords, of overzealous officials that comes up in so many cover-ups.

:39:52. > :39:57.The Green Party has said that the donation was considered but rejected

:39:58. > :40:05.by the party's ethics committee. That's a committee that we're told

:40:06. > :40:08.ensures no donations are accepted from foreign sources, tobacco

:40:09. > :40:15.companies or other industries, such as aviation. In other words, my

:40:16. > :40:19.Lord's, the offer was made, it was considered by the Green Party, it

:40:20. > :40:24.was used in argument within the Green Party to seek to induce people

:40:25. > :40:29.not to come forward or wish to come forward to be candidates, but was

:40:30. > :40:35.eventually rejected. Now it's true that the Green Party has denied that

:40:36. > :40:39.this attempted donation was contingent on this one specific seat

:40:40. > :40:45.being vacated for the Liberal Democrats. But that does not rule

:40:46. > :40:49.out its being part of an inducement to a wider, progressive alliance in

:40:50. > :40:56.which the two parties involved would agree not to contest a number of

:40:57. > :41:02.agreed seats. E-mails are available in which the liberal leader of

:41:03. > :41:06.Kingston, liberal party on Kingston Council, Liz Green, is seeking to

:41:07. > :41:14.reach such arrangements with local Greens. It's note worthy that

:41:15. > :41:20.Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, facing boundary changes, showed an uncommon

:41:21. > :41:25.interest in this matter, my Lord's. I asked the Electoral Commission if

:41:26. > :41:30.they were minded to investigate this attempted donation. They said that,

:41:31. > :41:35.I quote, "corrupt withdrawal from candidacy was a matter not for them

:41:36. > :41:40.but for the police." It was their understanding the matter might have

:41:41. > :41:45.been reported to the police, but a police spokesman, whom I cordially

:41:46. > :41:47.thank and who was perhaps unable to establish the position in the time

:41:48. > :41:52.available said after the inquiries he made that he was unaware of such

:41:53. > :41:58.an investigation. My Lord's, I think there should be an investigation and

:41:59. > :42:00.if no-one else has done so, then I would consider writing to the

:42:01. > :42:08.Metropolitan Police commissioner myself. Section 107 of the

:42:09. > :42:15.representation of the people act reads as follows: Corrupt withdrawal

:42:16. > :42:20.from candidature, "any person who corruptly induces or procures any

:42:21. > :42:26.other person to withdrawal from being a candidate at an election in

:42:27. > :42:32.consideration of any payment or promise of payment, promise of

:42:33. > :42:38.payment, my Lord's, and any person with drawing in pursuance of the

:42:39. > :42:43.producement or procurement shall be guilty of an illegal payment. What

:42:44. > :42:47.is not clear to me from this is if an inducement to a party not to put

:42:48. > :42:52.forward, to a party not to put forward a candidate, which can

:42:53. > :42:58.result, as in this case, in subsequent pressure on act vifrts

:42:59. > :43:04.not to stand, is equally a criminal offence under the act. Of course, in

:43:05. > :43:08.the circumstances in which parties have absolute control of the party

:43:09. > :43:13.badge, rightly so, at elections, if the party does not lend support,

:43:14. > :43:19.no-one who is a Green can stand as a Green using the greern name. Now it

:43:20. > :43:26.should be, in my judgment, a criminal offence to seek to induce a

:43:27. > :43:31.party not to put up a candidate by the offer of money. A police

:43:32. > :43:34.investigation in think case could readily establish the identity of

:43:35. > :43:38.the persons involved, including the would-be offerer of the donation.

:43:39. > :43:43.Something on which the Green Party should come clean. I challenge them

:43:44. > :43:49.to do so, my Lord's. What possible reason can there be for a political

:43:50. > :43:53.party hiding the identity of a would-be donor, to which they have

:43:54. > :43:58.admitted that they themselves is now unethical. They could at stroke

:43:59. > :44:03.could release that information and we might then be better able to

:44:04. > :44:10.establish the real truth behind this murky affair. My Lord's, I submit

:44:11. > :44:13.that section 107 doesn't cover inducements to parties not to permit

:44:14. > :44:18.candidates to go forward in certain seats, it should be revised to do

:44:19. > :44:22.so. I hope some of the other matters raised in this bill will be

:44:23. > :44:24.proceeded with. But I do hope that the two issues I've highlighted

:44:25. > :44:38.today will also be considered. My Lord's, I rise to thank Lord

:44:39. > :44:42.Tyler for raising this bill and declare that I the mareman of the

:44:43. > :44:49.committee on a report in public life. This has a certain family

:44:50. > :44:54.resemblance to the themes of this bill, public funding, 10,000

:44:55. > :45:00.donation cap, in particular. Again, as I have done before in this House,

:45:01. > :45:05.I have to concede that the report of the committee in 2011 from the very

:45:06. > :45:10.beginning did not claim the support of either the Conservative or Labour

:45:11. > :45:18.Party membership of the committee. This does not mean I think that we

:45:19. > :45:24.can then just shelf the report. I certainly think that in one respect

:45:25. > :45:28.in particular the emphasis in that report on the difficulties

:45:29. > :45:31.surrounding the big donor culture in British politics and the moral

:45:32. > :45:38.difficulties are still very much alive. It does mean that I am not

:45:39. > :45:43.here to fetishise any detail of that report. I does mean that I want to

:45:44. > :45:47.defend one of the key ideas, the need for cross-party consensus and

:45:48. > :45:51.I'm here to defend and move this issue forward. I am absolutely

:45:52. > :45:55.certain the issue cannot be left where it now is. I think, as I want

:45:56. > :45:58.to make clear in the course of speech, in a number of important

:45:59. > :46:03.respects, the whole landscape has changed in the last five, six years

:46:04. > :46:08.in respect to these issues. Any reform would have to take into

:46:09. > :46:17.account the ways in which the landscape has actually changed. I am

:46:18. > :46:21.grateful to the elements in the speech where he indicated there were

:46:22. > :46:26.certain elements of perform that he as a Conservative peer would

:46:27. > :46:30.support. I think that could be easily enough the beginning of a

:46:31. > :46:35.discussion between the parties in which there could be a consensus.

:46:36. > :46:43.There is enormous difficulty around this issue but I do want to start by

:46:44. > :46:47.supporting one point from Lord Tyler's speech, that is this: The

:46:48. > :46:53.Prime Minister very effectively, at the beginning of her tenure, as she

:46:54. > :47:01.took office, talked about the issue of public trust. She raised this

:47:02. > :47:04.issue, actually, I'm not now talking about general polling about the

:47:05. > :47:09.Conservative Party's fortunes, which everybody knows of. The Conservative

:47:10. > :47:14.side is quite solid. We've had an historic by-election result, but

:47:15. > :47:19.actually on the trust issue. There was a spike, a sympathetic spike

:47:20. > :47:22.upward in public trust issues in the immediate period of the Prime

:47:23. > :47:26.Minister taking office, upwards, because she talked about trust in

:47:27. > :47:30.politics and she talked about these issues and implied there would be

:47:31. > :47:35.change. I am absolutely certain and I know I say to a Government riding

:47:36. > :47:39.on a crest of a wave of highs opinion polls, the massive

:47:40. > :47:44.distraction of Brexit for Governmental energy. It cannot be

:47:45. > :47:48.left where it is. It cannot be left where expectation is raised that

:47:49. > :47:54.there is going to be some movement in this area and then absolutely

:47:55. > :47:59.nothing happens. There was this positive reaction and it would be

:48:00. > :48:04.very unpleasant for all of us to see this to turn sour in public opinion.

:48:05. > :48:09.Now the matter is very difficult. To put it simply, 80% of the public

:48:10. > :48:13.believe that people only give money to political parties because they

:48:14. > :48:17.want to become peers. 80% of the public believe they will not

:48:18. > :48:24.contribute to the upkeep of political problems. There you have a

:48:25. > :48:28.problem. Even more than the committee post on standards in

:48:29. > :48:33.public life posted last year and this was the work of Dee Goddard,

:48:34. > :48:39.from the University of Kent, whose work I will draw on later in the

:48:40. > :48:43.speech as well, you can see, for example, 90% of members of the

:48:44. > :48:48.public believe that MPs behave in hay way, which is determined in some

:48:49. > :48:51.degree, by party donors, possibly against their conscience. As a

:48:52. > :48:55.matter of fact, I do not believe this to be true at all. I believe

:48:56. > :49:01.the level of trustworthiness, real trustworthiness of a member of

:49:02. > :49:07.Parliament is far higher than some of these jaundiced surveys of trust.

:49:08. > :49:10.But nonetheless, the fact that level of suspicion exists cannot be

:49:11. > :49:14.totally disregarded. There's no magic way forward. Similar polling

:49:15. > :49:19.shows that 42% of the public are not sure they believe in a donation cap.

:49:20. > :49:22.That's quite a large chunk. They certainly are not sure as to what

:49:23. > :49:27.the level of that donation cap should be to political parties. So I

:49:28. > :49:34.am not denying for one minute that it will be easy to resolve these

:49:35. > :49:37.issues. I am not convinced that an all-singing, all-dancing reform

:49:38. > :49:42.would prove to be possible. I am convinced, and I think we have seen

:49:43. > :49:45.some of the elements of Lord Tyler's bill, and in Lord True's speeches,

:49:46. > :49:49.elements where the parties could come together and at least be seen

:49:50. > :49:54.to be responding to public concern on these matters. It is not good

:49:55. > :50:01.enough for the Conservative Party, all the parties actually, to have

:50:02. > :50:05.commitments in their 2010/2015 election manifestos which are widely

:50:06. > :50:10.disregarded. I should say in the name of fairness here, that while

:50:11. > :50:13.there's a pile of dusty and non-committal letters, in the

:50:14. > :50:16.committee of standards office, where weaver asked the leaders of all the

:50:17. > :50:21.parties what are they going to do on this matter and how will they live

:50:22. > :50:27.up to the language in their manifestos, there is also a dusty

:50:28. > :50:32.letter from the Deputy Prime Minister of the last Government,

:50:33. > :50:37.also not really moving the situation forward in any very dramatic way.

:50:38. > :50:43.All three major parties have not really distinguished themselves in

:50:44. > :50:50.their, in their enthusiasm for reform in this particular area. I

:50:51. > :50:54.want to mention a couple of difficulties in Lord Tyler's bill,

:50:55. > :50:58.one of which he's acknowledged and addressed it somewhat in his speech.

:50:59. > :51:03.It doesn't deal with matters in referenda. I think he's right and I

:51:04. > :51:08.think there's a key issue of, he's right in what he said in his speech,

:51:09. > :51:11.there is a key issue of private companies and their declaration of

:51:12. > :51:17.ultimate ownership, when they donate to political parties. This is now a

:51:18. > :51:22.key issue. I think it is likely to surface when the Electoral

:51:23. > :51:28.Commission carries out its projected analysis now of the funding of the

:51:29. > :51:33.referendum campaign. I think that is a gap. The second points that I want

:51:34. > :51:38.to address is the issue of third-party funding. Now here, Lord

:51:39. > :51:45.Tyler's bill slightly steps away from it. To be honest, our own

:51:46. > :51:50.committee report 2011, if I remember rightly, was criticised by the

:51:51. > :51:54.brilliant Oxford political scientist for its neglect of the third party

:51:55. > :51:58.funding issue. We simply said it was an issue and we wanted the electoral

:51:59. > :52:03.comiction to deal with it, but did not vote any real space or analysis

:52:04. > :52:08.in our report. I can understand why there was criticism of that neglect

:52:09. > :52:14.or deficiency. Since then, we have had the report of Lord Hodgson, the

:52:15. > :52:21.independent report on third-party funding. This is important and it

:52:22. > :52:26.came out in March 2016. It hits on something which is very important

:52:27. > :52:32.and reinforces my earlier point, the way in which the actual terrain of

:52:33. > :52:38.party political campaigning is changing so rapidly in this country

:52:39. > :52:42.so that reforms, such as ours, were essentially designed to deal with

:52:43. > :52:47.certain realities of payments for leafletting, the way that parties

:52:48. > :52:51.operated locally, the way that activists behaved locally, which in

:52:52. > :52:56.some ways had not changed all that much since the 1850s. In the last

:52:57. > :53:02.five years, a new world has actually been created. Lord Hodgson's report

:53:03. > :53:06.had the great merit of modernising our thinking on this key subject. In

:53:07. > :53:12.particular, the ambiguous way in which social media transforms the

:53:13. > :53:16.traditional forms of cam ache and -- campaigning. The parties are showing

:53:17. > :53:21.increasing skill in exploitation of social media platforms for targeted

:53:22. > :53:28.advertising using big data and the ability to data mine remains

:53:29. > :53:35.difficult, it's very expensive, expensive procedures and it is which

:53:36. > :53:40.therefore also heightens the significance of the use of private

:53:41. > :53:44.money in our politics. There is a strong sense in the last election,

:53:45. > :53:49.perfectly legitimately, the Conservative Party was well ahead of

:53:50. > :53:52.the game in this respect, certainly as expenditure was well ahead of the

:53:53. > :53:57.game, as against that of the Labour Party. Now that's politics. You're

:53:58. > :54:01.either awake or you're not. I make no protest on that particularly

:54:02. > :54:05.point, but nonetheless, it is something that you have to with

:54:06. > :54:10.thought about and Lord Hodgson, for example, makes a point very strongly

:54:11. > :54:14.in his report that many of these processes involved are likely to

:54:15. > :54:17.take place before actually the regulated campaign begins. So these

:54:18. > :54:21.are things we must at least take account of. We are not carrying out

:54:22. > :54:27.political campaigns in the way we used to. Any reform should try and

:54:28. > :54:33.address this. It's in some ways, as so often with the liberating, in

:54:34. > :54:36.some ways liberating and in other respects ambiguous and potentially

:54:37. > :54:46.disturbing in the way the new procedures might be put. Finally, my

:54:47. > :54:50.Lord's, I want to distress my strong support for the key theme of the

:54:51. > :54:53.bill before us today and that is the need for reform of the situation in

:54:54. > :54:58.Northern Ireland. Obviously, I have a personal interest as I'm from

:54:59. > :55:01.Northern Ireland, but actually my committee has had this interest long

:55:02. > :55:05.before. The committee has been addressing this subject since 2009.

:55:06. > :55:11.It is no longer acceptable to have secrecy as to party donations in

:55:12. > :55:17.Northern Ireland. There may yet be a need for some transitional phase,

:55:18. > :55:22.but nonetheless, the fact that we have had this secrecy is, in fact, a

:55:23. > :55:25.part of the crisis which now grips Northern Irish politics. It's a

:55:26. > :55:31.small part, but not insignificant. Because the point is this: That the

:55:32. > :55:36.public believes that those who benefitted from the renewable

:55:37. > :55:40.heating scandal and the waste -- alleged waste of hundreds of

:55:41. > :55:44.millions of pounds of public money are, in many cases, party donors.

:55:45. > :55:50.Now this may not be true, my neighbours all believe it to be

:55:51. > :55:52.true. It may be entirely unfair. But what is a complicated and poisonous

:55:53. > :55:58.factor in the recent election, there's no doubt in my mind it was a

:55:59. > :56:03.complicated factor. May I make this point, my Lord's, we often wonder in

:56:04. > :56:08.this country about transparency. It is perfectly true to say as I look

:56:09. > :56:15.through The Minutes, before my time, that back over 20 years, that there

:56:16. > :56:17.is an illusion on behalf of my very distinguished predecessors about

:56:18. > :56:22.transparency. They actually believed for sure if only we achieved more

:56:23. > :56:26.transparency in this or that area of British public life there would be

:56:27. > :56:30.an increase in public trustment -- trust. In many respects this has not

:56:31. > :56:34.happened. That is an illusion. But it is also the case and it is very

:56:35. > :56:39.clear from the recent scandal in Northern Ireland, that the absence

:56:40. > :56:50.of transparency makes things worse, so transparency is not the cure-all.

:56:51. > :56:56.So I want to make that point and perhaps also in fairness Lord Tyler

:56:57. > :57:00.mentioned the issue of the Democratic Unionist Party. Good I

:57:01. > :57:06.explain this business of funding. It was an option for the Conservative

:57:07. > :57:10.Party, this idea that money would go to Northern Ireland. There is no

:57:11. > :57:13.suggestion that the Conservative Party Northern Ireland has ever used

:57:14. > :57:21.that route which technically could have done, and indeed the Labour

:57:22. > :57:26.Party which while it doesn't stand candidates in Northern Ireland has

:57:27. > :57:32.members who are allowed to vote for the Labour leadership for example.

:57:33. > :57:34.There has never been a suggestion and I'm confident it hasn't happened

:57:35. > :57:38.that either of the main parties could have exploited the route that

:57:39. > :57:43.is now complained about in the press have actually done so. By the way

:57:44. > :57:48.another indication of the point I'm trying to make that often levels of

:57:49. > :57:54.trustworthiness are actually higher than the public believes it to be.

:57:55. > :57:58.In mainstream British politics. Because technically anyone who sees

:57:59. > :58:05.this can say, how could this be legal? Once you have donations to a

:58:06. > :58:09.political party, how is it, it will make it very uncomfortable, but

:58:10. > :58:15.where is the illegality involved because we have already got secrecy

:58:16. > :58:18.of donations in Northern Ireland. What is the illegality involved.

:58:19. > :58:24.Written about critically in the press. I dead quite see the

:58:25. > :58:28.illegality. Just to complete this point, it is not just the DUP Houari

:58:29. > :58:38.problem here because current Northern Ireland electoral law

:58:39. > :58:42.favours Sin Fein also, in that we do not accept foreign donations for

:58:43. > :58:45.political parties and because we are linked in to the capacious

:58:46. > :58:50.definition that the Irish Gutman has as to what is to be an Irish

:58:51. > :58:55.citizen, Irish citizens are allowed to donate and it is perfectly

:58:56. > :58:59.possible that a chap in Chicago who has never been in Highland in his

:59:00. > :59:06.life could also be donating to one of the critical parties. It is

:59:07. > :59:10.another political principle that is flouted by the current legislation,

:59:11. > :59:13.the opposition to foreign donations. Let me say supposing the last

:59:14. > :59:21.government, Sinn Fein had taken their seats and suppose they had, it

:59:22. > :59:24.had been right towards a Labour government, we could have a Prime

:59:25. > :59:30.Minister elected in this country in Parliament on the basis of a totally

:59:31. > :59:33.different franchise in terms of the expenditure limits and context in

:59:34. > :59:38.which they were working under. So there is, and by the way, you will

:59:39. > :59:43.say to me that Sinn Fein don't currently take their seats but one

:59:44. > :59:47.of the last public statements of Martin McGuinness was to suggest

:59:48. > :59:50.that perhaps, Brexit was such a bad thing that it might be necessary for

:59:51. > :59:56.them to revise their policy in this Parliament. I know the government

:59:57. > :00:02.has this to paper out and there is a hint that the government itself is

:00:03. > :00:07.looking for change in this area, I would be very comforted if the noble

:00:08. > :00:13.Lord was able to say what the state of the government's thinking is on

:00:14. > :00:19.this matter, of party funding in Northern Ireland? May join other

:00:20. > :00:24.noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend on introducing this

:00:25. > :00:29.very comprehensive bill. And hopefully it will push forward the

:00:30. > :00:33.debates that we have had, in this chamber and elsewhere, on this very

:00:34. > :00:38.important topic. I was also a member of the select committee on the trade

:00:39. > :00:43.union funding of political parties. The reason for my interest in this

:00:44. > :00:47.is that I spent, the years in the running up to the last election as

:00:48. > :00:53.the treasure of the Liberal Democrats, raising over ?20 million

:00:54. > :00:57.in the run-up and during that election campaign so I have got some

:00:58. > :01:05.first-hand experience not only in the business world but also in

:01:06. > :01:11.raising funds for political parties. And before I go on to comment on the

:01:12. > :01:17.bill, and the current state of the debate on this matter, I want to

:01:18. > :01:24.just respond to Lord Troon. The noble Lord, went through a whole

:01:25. > :01:29.series of instances and all I would say to him about the Brown case and

:01:30. > :01:32.others like him, and this refers to all parties. If this bill was on the

:01:33. > :01:39.statute book anything like it none of those things would have happened.

:01:40. > :01:44.That brings me, to what I think is the most important feature of this

:01:45. > :01:48.bill. Before doing that I would say, again to the noble lord. I spent

:01:49. > :01:54.last night with Sarah Olney and the leader of the Liberal Democrats in

:01:55. > :01:58.Richmond and party members there, and in response to is comments about

:01:59. > :02:06.the Richmond local authority, we will see at the ballot box next May,

:02:07. > :02:10.and respond in that way. I think the most important feature of this bill,

:02:11. > :02:14.the noble Lord has raised some very important issues as well. But the

:02:15. > :02:26.most important feature of this bill, he is, the reform of contributions.

:02:27. > :02:30.And on bringing down the scale of contributions. On introducing a cap,

:02:31. > :02:36.so that the abuses that have taken place in the past, can be avoided,

:02:37. > :02:46.and that some trust in politicians can be hopefully improved. Now I

:02:47. > :02:50.don't frankly expect that will happen soon because I think the

:02:51. > :02:56.party opposite would be adamantly opposed to any such reform taking

:02:57. > :02:59.place. Because they clearly have a massive advantage from major donors

:03:00. > :03:06.in the funding of the Conservative Party and have had for many years.

:03:07. > :03:10.And therefore I am not optimistic that the change will take place

:03:11. > :03:14.until another government comes into office and changes it. The present

:03:15. > :03:18.government needs to remember, that while it may be riding high at the

:03:19. > :03:24.moment, governments do change and will change and circumstances may

:03:25. > :03:28.well lead to the change that they don't want to see happening taking

:03:29. > :03:35.place sometime in the future. The Labour Party has made major reforms

:03:36. > :03:42.and I must say very welcome reforms following the Collins review. Of

:03:43. > :03:45.political funding by the trade unions and the Labour Party. I think

:03:46. > :03:51.the changes that have taken place have moved us in the right direction

:03:52. > :03:57.towards individual donations. Which should enable, in a rational world,

:03:58. > :04:00.the major parties to come to some agreement on how we move ahead in

:04:01. > :04:08.the future. One of the other consequences of abolishing all of

:04:09. > :04:13.putting a cap, on major payments, is that it would make parties do what I

:04:14. > :04:18.think would be very good for our democracy, which President Obama

:04:19. > :04:24.demonstrated, in his fund-raising activities for his campaigns. And

:04:25. > :04:29.that is, it would make the parties, I been in the position of having to

:04:30. > :04:34.do this, go out to the electorate and raise funds, small donations,

:04:35. > :04:37.from many, many people. That's very good for the health of the democracy

:04:38. > :04:42.and for the health of the parties that we should be forced into the

:04:43. > :04:46.position of having to go to thousands on thousands of people. If

:04:47. > :04:49.you have got a cap of ?10,000 you would have to do that, that would be

:04:50. > :04:58.a very good thing in our political life. And would make parties have

:04:59. > :05:04.two respond to a cap or that sort. The noble Lord mentioned the changes

:05:05. > :05:11.in can political campaigning. They dovetail in. I agree with him, the

:05:12. > :05:21.speed with which campaigning methods are now progressing, does mean that

:05:22. > :05:26.it all needs to be reviewed. And that changing using the social media

:05:27. > :05:29.in particular enables us to raise funds from a very substantial number

:05:30. > :05:32.of people and we seal sorts of examples day by day of this

:05:33. > :05:38.happening in crowdfunding of all sorts of very good causes, peeping

:05:39. > :05:43.crisis. Companies. It is a whole new scene and there is no reason why,

:05:44. > :05:47.and it has happened to some extent, the political parties couldn't do

:05:48. > :05:51.the same thing. Extend their reach and get over this whole burden of

:05:52. > :05:58.major donations being made to parties. So I think that is the

:05:59. > :06:08.biggest necessary reform. But I'm afraid as I say that I don't

:06:09. > :06:12.expected to be happening soon. But I do think there are some things, and

:06:13. > :06:16.a number of them have been mentioned in the debate, that could be

:06:17. > :06:23.usefully discussed in discussions between the major parties. When the

:06:24. > :06:30.coalition was in office. The Deputy Prime Minister called for all-party

:06:31. > :06:35.talks, and unfortunately although the Labour Party responded by

:06:36. > :06:38.nominating a cabinet, a Shadow Cabinet minister and their general

:06:39. > :06:41.secretary to take part in those, the Liberal Democrats did the same, the

:06:42. > :06:44.Conservative Party didn't respond at all despite being partners in

:06:45. > :06:50.government. It wasn't until the Peter Cruddas affair, hit the Sunday

:06:51. > :06:53.Times, that the Conservative Party decided it should do something about

:06:54. > :06:57.it and I think the Prime Minister spoke to the Deputy Prime Minister

:06:58. > :07:02.when he learned that exposure was going to be made, in the Sunday

:07:03. > :07:05.Times and suggested that they would give names to him for the all-party

:07:06. > :07:10.talks to take place and sure enough this was used as a cover for the

:07:11. > :07:17.Peter Cruddas coverage that took place at that time. A very cynical

:07:18. > :07:19.way in which to handle it and of course, no progress was really made

:07:20. > :07:25.in those talks because the Conservative Party wasn't interested

:07:26. > :07:32.in making progress on any of the major matters that were discussed.

:07:33. > :07:35.And, I think the abuses which had been taken place and which are being

:07:36. > :07:40.investigated at the moment demonstrate the need for those talks

:07:41. > :07:45.to take place as soon as possible. My noble friend referred to the

:07:46. > :07:49.investigations that the police and the electoral commission are

:07:50. > :07:56.carrying out at the moment. In 1979, I had a case that went to the hype

:07:57. > :08:00.court over my election expenses, to assess to the High Court. By greed

:08:01. > :08:06.is quite unacceptable that these investigations have been going on

:08:07. > :08:09.for almost two years now. And the members of Parliament concerned have

:08:10. > :08:13.no certainty of their future in Parliament because it could be that

:08:14. > :08:19.if the police find a case against them, that those Conservative

:08:20. > :08:23.members, that are being investigated the abuses found, they could lose

:08:24. > :08:27.their seats. I think that is an impossible position for them to be

:08:28. > :08:37.in, guilty or not guilty. The matter should be resolved quickly. But we

:08:38. > :08:43.said in the select committee report as my noble friend said, talks

:08:44. > :08:48.should take place. The government had been extremely reluctant as

:08:49. > :08:51.demonstrated by the ministers, the time that it is the ministers to

:08:52. > :08:58.respond to the select committee report. There are some useful things

:08:59. > :09:05.that could be discussed. And I urge the noble Lord minister, to respond

:09:06. > :09:10.positively to this. There are changes, some of these have been

:09:11. > :09:12.mentioned already in the debate. But there are changes possibly in the

:09:13. > :09:21.tax treatment of political donations. Changes in methods of

:09:22. > :09:26.fundraising, that I think be considered in joint talks. Also the

:09:27. > :09:32.distribution of the existing funding of parties, because it is a bit of a

:09:33. > :09:36.myth, that there is no state funding of the parties at the present time.

:09:37. > :09:40.There is an enormous state funding of the critical parties, whether it

:09:41. > :09:45.is through support for research assistants, in Parliament, whether

:09:46. > :09:50.it is through the freepost mechanism. There is an enormous

:09:51. > :09:58.amount of money and it may be, that could be looked at and a more

:09:59. > :10:02.equitable system worked out. So I hope that the Minister will respond

:10:03. > :10:07.to this debate today by saying that the government will initiate talks

:10:08. > :10:11.between the critical parties. -- political parties.

:10:12. > :10:20.I hope the minister will respond well to this debate by initiating

:10:21. > :10:25.talks in his closing speech. My Lord's, as others have said, Lord

:10:26. > :10:33.Tyler is to be commented by bringing this bill and this issue before the

:10:34. > :10:39.House. His persistence and resilience in this matter against

:10:40. > :10:42.quite severe odds. I do think this House is a good place to be

:10:43. > :10:46.discussed in the first place, without the overall majority of any

:10:47. > :10:49.particular party, we can discuss the issues. At the end of the day,

:10:50. > :10:53.whilst I do have aspects of this bill which I would like to commend

:10:54. > :11:00.and others which I somewhat disagree with, I think the main point of this

:11:01. > :11:04.debate is to see how the minister responds, because there is a grave

:11:05. > :11:10.responsibility in the party of Government to take the initiative in

:11:11. > :11:14.this respect. I'm therefore greatly looking forward to the response by

:11:15. > :11:22.the noble Lord, Lord Young, in a few minutes' time. My Lord's, like Lord

:11:23. > :11:30.Tyler I served on the Select Committee set up in the course of

:11:31. > :11:34.the trade union bill. Since others have not eschewed partisan comments,

:11:35. > :11:38.I would say the reason that was set up was in response to a rather

:11:39. > :11:42.blatant move by the Conservative Government to attempt to bankrupt

:11:43. > :11:48.the largest party of Opposition, a move which would largely be

:11:49. > :11:52.condemned if we were talking about a banana republic reporting to be a

:11:53. > :11:58.proper democracy. But, my Lord's, that party's own move was part of a

:11:59. > :12:02.pattern, but it was probably the most blatant of them. Over the

:12:03. > :12:08.years, Governments of different parties, Labour and Conservative, at

:12:09. > :12:14.least, have made minor moves to try and restrict the amount of money

:12:15. > :12:20.available to their main Opposition. The trade union bill, the trade

:12:21. > :12:25.union act as it is now, was a very major such move, but in all

:12:26. > :12:30.contexts, governments have attempted to restrict resources available to

:12:31. > :12:38.their opponents. My Lord's, the point of the Select Committee

:12:39. > :12:45.report,ence dorsed by this House was that we ought to be making another

:12:46. > :12:49.effort to reach consensus on a proportionate way forward, which

:12:50. > :12:53.does not impose huge burdens on the taxpayer or on the law, but which

:12:54. > :13:04.all parties and all commentators could see as far as comprehensive.

:13:05. > :13:09.My Lord's, the Conservative Party manifesto to which Lord Tyler has

:13:10. > :13:12.already made reference not only included a rather vaguely worded

:13:13. > :13:16.commitment to do something about trade union political funds, but it

:13:17. > :13:20.also did commit a future Conservative Government to do

:13:21. > :13:27.exactly what we are asking for, to set up a new initiative to look at

:13:28. > :13:34.party funding as a whole. I think it's fair to say that all members of

:13:35. > :13:36.that Select Committee were appalled at the complete indifference of

:13:37. > :13:41.Government ministers who came to that committee in terms of their own

:13:42. > :13:47.responsibilities, which they effectively put back to the

:13:48. > :13:50.individual parties. My Lord's, that applied to the Conservative members

:13:51. > :13:57.as much to the Labour and Liberal Democrat and independent members of

:13:58. > :14:00.that committee. The reply to which Lord Tyler has referred to, which we

:14:01. > :14:03.eventually got, does not take us any further. My Lord's, I suppose I

:14:04. > :14:09.should have declared an interest at the beginning or at least a past

:14:10. > :14:15.interest. I was for many years administer of a political fund of my

:14:16. > :14:21.union and I was the grateful recipient of the trade union

:14:22. > :14:24.political funds as General Secretary of the party. It is well known and

:14:25. > :14:27.straightforward that the party has been pretty dependent on those

:14:28. > :14:33.funds. I have always recognised that the way in which those funds are

:14:34. > :14:37.raised and pats s passed to the party -- and passed to the party has

:14:38. > :14:41.always been controversial and has reflected public concern that. Was

:14:42. > :14:44.referred to in the report of the Committee on Standards in Public

:14:45. > :14:49.Life. It has been referred to also earlier today. This is the issue of

:14:50. > :14:54.opting out or opting in to the political funds and opting out or

:14:55. > :15:01.opting in to donations to political parties. My Lord's, for many years I

:15:02. > :15:08.have strongly defended the opting out provisions, but I do recognise

:15:09. > :15:14.the pressure there. It does seem to me that the Labour Party has since

:15:15. > :15:19.that Chris Kelly report, moved somewhat in the direction that

:15:20. > :15:25.report was suggesting. Being an old cynic and an old negotiator, I

:15:26. > :15:29.wasn't too keen on the move that we followed, my noble friend Lord

:15:30. > :15:34.Collins report, not on principle, not the rights and wrongs of it. But

:15:35. > :15:39.I thought the Labour Party was giving away one of the cards it

:15:40. > :15:44.ought to be playing when multiparty negotiations started, which I hoped

:15:45. > :15:48.at that time would be fairly soon. My Lord's, I'm not entirely in

:15:49. > :15:52.favour ever what we have done, but the fact is we have made a move.

:15:53. > :15:57.There has been no reciprocal move from the other parties, in

:15:58. > :16:01.particular from the Conservative Party, who have the Government, have

:16:02. > :16:05.the responsibility in Government. So we have a situation now, we're

:16:06. > :16:12.following the reforms under Ed Miliband on the basis of my noble

:16:13. > :16:16.friend's report. The Labour Party, trade unions, face a double opt in.

:16:17. > :16:21.You opt into the political fund and opt in to pay an affiliation fee to

:16:22. > :16:25.the Labour Party. My Lord's, no other source of funds and no other

:16:26. > :16:32.political party places those same barriers. I have had occasion to

:16:33. > :16:40.refer to this before. In the five years up to when we committed our

:16:41. > :16:44.report under the trade union bill proceedings, ?64 million was donated

:16:45. > :16:49.by trade unions to political parties, almost all of it to the

:16:50. > :16:53.Labour Party. However, another 80 million was donated by other

:16:54. > :16:58.organisations, over 80 million. The vast majority of which went to the

:16:59. > :17:02.Conservative Party. My Lord's, whereas trade unions have to have a

:17:03. > :17:06.separate political fund, had to provide for their members to opt out

:17:07. > :17:12.of that political fund, and now have to opt in to the political fund, and

:17:13. > :17:15.have to have a periodic renewal of that political fund, the other

:17:16. > :17:22.organisations have no such restrictions. We are therefore

:17:23. > :17:25.faced, in terms of the organisational - legal organisations

:17:26. > :17:32.contribution to our political process, with a very lop sided

:17:33. > :17:36.system. My Lord, the provisions of this bill refer to membership

:17:37. > :17:43.organisations, by which I hope they mean not only trade unions but also

:17:44. > :17:47.corporate entities, partnerships and others who have made donations to

:17:48. > :17:53.political parties in the past and continue to do so. It will involve

:17:54. > :17:56.the Co-operative organisations and friendly societies and there will be

:17:57. > :17:59.particular problems for the cooperate party, which need to be

:18:00. > :18:09.taken on board during the process here. But my Lord's, if all

:18:10. > :18:13.organisations faced the same hurdles, and the same need to ensure

:18:14. > :18:19.that their members took a positive decision to pay money to a political

:18:20. > :18:23.party, then the public's anxiety and the public's suspicion of where that

:18:24. > :18:29.money is going to and what strings are attached to it would be

:18:30. > :18:33.significantly relieved. My Lord's, I have a number of particular issues

:18:34. > :18:39.in relation to this bill, which I would return to in detail were it to

:18:40. > :18:44.proceed further, after today. I do agree with noble Lord Bew and others

:18:45. > :18:50.who have referred to the need to update the provisions of our

:18:51. > :18:56.political fund regulations, in particular into areas of third

:18:57. > :19:00.parties or front organisations and in particular to the importance of

:19:01. > :19:05.social media as a means of communicating messages, which can

:19:06. > :19:07.frequently clearly be targeted to particular constituencies and

:19:08. > :19:13.particular groups of people. We need to catch up with that. It is clear

:19:14. > :19:20.if the main purpose of this bill, which is to limit donations, the

:19:21. > :19:25.level of donations, is to cubing seed, it has to be accompanied by

:19:26. > :19:39.other provisions and clearly limits on spending, at a local and national

:19:40. > :19:42.level, limits on the way in which organisations can channel their

:19:43. > :19:46.money and most controversially of all, it has to be accompanied by a

:19:47. > :19:54.degree of state funding in order that political parties can actually

:19:55. > :20:01.flourish. My Lord's, I know that is not particularly important priority

:20:02. > :20:06.in terms of a difficult fiscal situation, but nevertheless, I think

:20:07. > :20:11.if the case were made that state funding is part of the solution and

:20:12. > :20:15.were the solutions which Lord Tyler, in a different context, has put

:20:16. > :20:18.forward in redistributing what currently exists in terms of state

:20:19. > :20:23.funding in a more meaningful way, so that actually the net result was

:20:24. > :20:30.relatively small, then they would accept it. My Lord's, what is really

:20:31. > :20:35.key today is whatever our own views and the number of different views

:20:36. > :20:40.have been expressed as to what this bill ought to cover, whatever our

:20:41. > :20:44.individual views, the key issue today is whether the Government, in

:20:45. > :20:50.the person of Lord Young, can commit itself to taking the initiative to

:20:51. > :20:58.get and review a new start at looking on a consensual basis as

:20:59. > :21:01.possible, the need to produce a comprehensive package, which will

:21:02. > :21:08.put political funding on a fairer basis. We shouldn't kid ourselves,

:21:09. > :21:10.my Lord's, when Sir Chris Kelly produced his report he referred to

:21:11. > :21:16.the deep concern amongst the public. We have seen in recent days that

:21:17. > :21:20.concern about interference of vested interests in our politics through

:21:21. > :21:25.monetary proceedings, not all of which are as transparent as they

:21:26. > :21:32.should be, but as Lord Bew said, transparency is key, but it's not

:21:33. > :21:37.enough. I hope that the debate today will provoke the minister to make a

:21:38. > :21:41.more positive response than his predecessors on this issue have and

:21:42. > :21:48.to trigger a whole new start in looking at this issue so that we can

:21:49. > :21:52.begin to put public trust back into the issue of funding of political

:21:53. > :21:57.parties. My Lord's, I too congratulate my

:21:58. > :22:00.noble friend, Lord aler, and all those involved in bringing forward

:22:01. > :22:05.this bill. It is 17 years this month, since I led for my party on

:22:06. > :22:11.the House's deliberations on the political parties elections and

:22:12. > :22:17.Referendum Act of 2000, generally known now as Pipira. There were

:22:18. > :22:21.hopes in those debates that its provisions for transparency

:22:22. > :22:25.concerning donations to parties and a maximum cap on the party's

:22:26. > :22:28.national spending would clean up the reputation of party funding. It was

:22:29. > :22:33.believed in those debates that it could help to restore the principles

:22:34. > :22:40.of a level playing field in politics as first set out in the corrupt and

:22:41. > :22:44.illegal practices prevention act of 1883, which first standardised the

:22:45. > :22:49.amount that could be spent on constituency election spenss. --

:22:50. > :22:53.expenses. Gladstone's Government introduced that bill in order to

:22:54. > :22:59.prevent thousands of pounds counting for more than thousands of votes in

:23:00. > :23:04.individual constituencies. But my Lord's, that principle has now been

:23:05. > :23:09.almost completely eroded. The aims of the legislation in 2000 have

:23:10. > :23:14.clearly not been met. Politics is not seen to be cleaner and the

:23:15. > :23:20.effect of the more recent legislation has been to completely

:23:21. > :23:25.undermine the principle of the 1883 legislation, which for over 100

:23:26. > :23:31.years, did much to prevent parties purchasing constituencies as a

:23:32. > :23:35.result of superior spending power. The legislation suffered, I think,

:23:36. > :23:40.from the absence of pre-legislative scrutiny. It was then subject to

:23:41. > :23:46.very little scrutiny in the House of Commons. When we considered it in

:23:47. > :23:49.this place, it was subject to over 500 Government amendments, whilst

:23:50. > :23:54.other amendments, which would have helped to avoid many of the

:23:55. > :24:02.problems, were not accepted. We missed the chance then to impose a

:24:03. > :24:05.cap on donations. The effective introducing national spending

:24:06. > :24:14.limits, permitting supposedly national spending to be targeted at

:24:15. > :24:17.individual constituencies, drove the proverbial coach and horses through

:24:18. > :24:22.the level playing field in constituency elections. Some of the

:24:23. > :24:25.resulting problems, as identified recently, by the excellent

:24:26. > :24:30.investigative journalist, Michael Crick, may shortly be tested in the

:24:31. > :24:34.courts. But the only defence that I can see to many allegations that

:24:35. > :24:40.have been made is that the legislation is said to be ambiguous.

:24:41. > :24:45.That, my Lord's, is why we really do need greater clarity in legislation

:24:46. > :24:49.and a commitment to re-establishing a more level playing field in

:24:50. > :24:54.British politics, as provided for in this bill.

:24:55. > :25:01.It is now clear that the very high limits on ostensibly national

:25:02. > :25:07.campaigns and which I argued 17 years ago should have been lower,

:25:08. > :25:12.are being abused. By spending superior resources in individual

:25:13. > :25:17.targeted constituencies. The idea that any letter sent to a voter by a

:25:18. > :25:22.political party is not in some way designed to promote that party's

:25:23. > :25:30.electoral success in a car specific constituency within voter limits

:25:31. > :25:34.defies basic common-sense. The failings of the legislation were

:25:35. > :25:39.largely addressed in my view by the excellent report of the committee on

:25:40. > :25:44.standards in Public life in 2011. The committee's report provided the

:25:45. > :25:48.only possible route through which the coalition government could have

:25:49. > :25:55.fulfilled the agreement on which it was based, to take the big-money out

:25:56. > :25:59.of politics. But the vetoing of any increase, however modest, in

:26:00. > :26:04.existing state funding for parties, prevented the possibility of

:26:05. > :26:10.agreement of a cap on donations as was proposed for the reform at that

:26:11. > :26:16.time of trade union funding. My Lords, in evidence to the committee

:26:17. > :26:23.on standards of public life in 1994, I drop my own party's then policy on

:26:24. > :26:28.party finance. That ash I troop up. This was firstly to cap individual

:26:29. > :26:32.donations initially at ?50,000 a year from any individual or

:26:33. > :26:37.organisation. As my friend Lord Wrigglesworth has said, this would

:26:38. > :26:41.have avoided embarrassing it to all parties that has happened

:26:42. > :26:44.subsequently. Secondly, my proposals were to prevent trade unions

:26:45. > :26:51.effectively spending the members money without them properly choosing

:26:52. > :26:55.to contribute to a party. And thirdly, to enable parties to

:26:56. > :26:59.campaign with a limited increase in state funding, which presently

:27:00. > :27:02.provides for things like distribution of election

:27:03. > :27:05.communications in Parliamentary elections as well as research and

:27:06. > :27:11.communication support to parties in parliament. In our debates in 2000,

:27:12. > :27:17.I also argued for more realistic expenditure levels as the

:27:18. > :27:23.constituency level, and lower limits on national expenditure by the

:27:24. > :27:28.parties. This bill today takes those principles forward, and it sets out

:27:29. > :27:31.carefully considered and balanced proposals which also update their

:27:32. > :27:39.excellent work by the committee on standards in public life early in

:27:40. > :27:43.the last parliament. The reason why we needed to address these issues

:27:44. > :27:48.became more apparent not just in the 2015 general election, but also in

:27:49. > :27:53.last year 's referendum campaign. As my noble friend Lord Tyler referred

:27:54. > :27:57.to, there was effective laundry of political donations during the

:27:58. > :28:01.recent EU referendum by the way of the Northern Ireland Democratic

:28:02. > :28:07.Unionist Party, spending in parts of Great Britain where it does not

:28:08. > :28:10.itself campaign. Parliament made special provision for Northern

:28:11. > :28:15.Ireland in 2000, for reasons referred to by the noble Lord Lord

:28:16. > :28:20.Pugh. But we then did not foresee this abuse spending rules in a

:28:21. > :28:25.referendum. And it must soon be time to bring Northern Ireland into line

:28:26. > :28:31.with rules that apply in Great Britain, and the Republic of

:28:32. > :28:34.Ireland. Finally, I want to turn to the government's response to the

:28:35. > :28:39.select committee on trade union to tickle funds and political party

:28:40. > :28:43.funding. It was right as Lord Tyler said for the committee to remind the

:28:44. > :28:47.Conservative Party. Their manifesto commitment to seek agreement on a

:28:48. > :28:54.comprehensive package of party funding reform. And to call for the

:28:55. > :28:59.renewal of cross-party talks. The government response which he quoted,

:29:00. > :29:03.tries to kill off progress in those talks, for they have even begun, by

:29:04. > :29:09.pretending, that an increase in funding to political parties is

:29:10. > :29:15.impossible to achieve without increasing the overall burden on the

:29:16. > :29:19.taxpayer. My Lords, I would never suggest, the very limited spending

:29:20. > :29:23.on democratic engagement by political parties could ever be at

:29:24. > :29:28.the expense of funding of things like schools and hospitals. Or any

:29:29. > :29:33.kind of tax interest. I would suggest instead, that we look to cut

:29:34. > :29:38.the cost of government politicking through government advertising.

:29:39. > :29:41.Label Lord the minister recently disclosed in an answer to a written

:29:42. > :29:47.question from me that the government currently spending well over ?100

:29:48. > :29:53.million in year on its own advertising. This includes for

:29:54. > :29:59.example, almost ?700,000 on promoting its policy, of a tax break

:30:00. > :30:03.for married couples. Many such campaigns my Lords seem to be more

:30:04. > :30:09.based on promotion of Conservative Party policy, and public interest.

:30:10. > :30:13.The government response to the select committee says that the cost

:30:14. > :30:19.of the committee on standards of public life proposals, would be

:30:20. > :30:23.almost 20,000,000,000-a-year at 2010 prices. But much of this my Lords

:30:24. > :30:29.could be found by reallocating existing party spending. Provided by

:30:30. > :30:37.the government. The bill before us makes provision to reduce spending

:30:38. > :30:43.in other areas by ending the policy development grants and by

:30:44. > :30:46.amalgamating the cost of delivery, freepost election mailings, please

:30:47. > :30:50.can indication is in the present system are sent by individual

:30:51. > :30:56.candidates at a cost to the taxpayers in the 2010 general

:30:57. > :31:02.election of some ?28 million. This communication in my view could be

:31:03. > :31:05.more cheaply combined into a single bucket, as I first successfully

:31:06. > :31:12.proposed for the mayoral elections back in 2000. And it has been

:31:13. > :31:16.adopted successfully in mayoral elections ever since. The

:31:17. > :31:20.combinations of the savings and production in the government

:31:21. > :31:24.advertising budget could cover a modest investment in clean up

:31:25. > :31:28.politics that was proposed by the committee on standards in Public

:31:29. > :31:34.life in 2011. Politics would be much better, were each citizen Roger but

:31:35. > :31:40.very modestly to the costs of democracy. This would be a return to

:31:41. > :31:44.a ban on the selling of influence and access which takes place at the

:31:45. > :31:49.moment as the parties need to fundraiser for the cost of their

:31:50. > :31:54.election campaigns. Of course, in response to these proposals, there

:31:55. > :31:57.will be some anger, distortion and misinformation in elements of the

:31:58. > :32:03.press. Which would prefer to protect its own power to present issues to

:32:04. > :32:08.the public in its own way, as opposed to letting parties and

:32:09. > :32:13.candidates to mutate directly. And without all their views being

:32:14. > :32:17.filtered by the media. It is time my Lords, to make progress on these

:32:18. > :32:28.issues and the bill before us shows how this can be done. My Lords must

:32:29. > :32:30.declare an interest, I was treasurer of the better together campaign. In

:32:31. > :32:36.Scotland during the recent referendum. I would just like to

:32:37. > :32:44.point out that every single party I can think of, has been, suffered if

:32:45. > :32:48.you like the Liberal Democrats, Tories DBP Sinn Fein everyone except

:32:49. > :32:57.for the Scottish Nationalists. If we are talking about caps on

:32:58. > :32:59.expenditure, one and a half million was raised by the Scottish

:33:00. > :33:05.Nationalists, the yes campaign come of that one and a half million, 1

:33:06. > :33:09.million came from a single couple. Said two thirds of the total

:33:10. > :33:11.contribution for whole campaign, which was a very important

:33:12. > :33:18.constitutional issue came from two people. The only point I'm making is

:33:19. > :33:23.that if we are talking about caps onto nations I believe it should

:33:24. > :33:34.certainly apply to referenda as much as elections.

:33:35. > :33:38.My Lords firstly I congratulate my noble Lord Lord Tyler for securing

:33:39. > :33:47.the second reading of his private members bill today. They being so

:33:48. > :33:52.late in the session, I suspect he will make no further progress, which

:33:53. > :33:57.is a matter of regret and one that I repeatedly brought to the attention

:33:58. > :34:01.of the government to look at the procedures that enable the grand

:34:02. > :34:06.committee to be used for some committee stage or private members

:34:07. > :34:10.bills for progress to be made quicker. To move on from the snail

:34:11. > :34:17.'s pace that we often move for private members legislation. Much of

:34:18. > :34:20.those bills are sensible, and we will benefit if they reach the

:34:21. > :34:23.statute book. The noble Lord stresses a number of issues that

:34:24. > :34:32.have been on the table for quite some time. These are important

:34:33. > :34:36.issues that would be beneficial. I do not necessarily agree with all of

:34:37. > :34:39.the clauses of the bill while it is moving in the right direction and

:34:40. > :34:44.the noble Lord made an important point in respect of the issues

:34:45. > :34:48.regarding referenda. And I was pleased, that they brought the SNP

:34:49. > :34:54.and, all parties have had their issues fared in terms of this debate

:34:55. > :34:59.today. I'm sure that the noble Lord is going to say that the government

:35:00. > :35:04.can't impose consensus on the political parties. But they are open

:35:05. > :35:10.to debate and dialogue. Well that is fine as far as it goes. But it could

:35:11. > :35:12.equally, the government is drawn from a political party, so they have

:35:13. > :35:17.more interest in this matter than that statement would imply. I threw

:35:18. > :35:20.much agree with the noble Lord that the party should get around the

:35:21. > :35:25.table to seek agreement on all of these matters. Prior to the election

:35:26. > :35:34.of the Labour government in 1997, there was in effect no legislation,

:35:35. > :35:37.in respect of political parties, and national campaign expenditure. The

:35:38. > :35:41.Labour government asked on the political standards of public life

:35:42. > :35:49.what got out of that. It came out as the critical parties and referenda

:35:50. > :35:54.Max. Are the legislation, including loans to political parties, postal

:35:55. > :35:58.voting and individual electoral legislation over the period of the

:35:59. > :36:02.government 's term of office. Seeking agreement among the parties

:36:03. > :36:07.was and should be a high priority and for me that is the way to

:36:08. > :36:12.proceed. Since then, that hasn't always been the case. The only have

:36:13. > :36:16.to look at the decisions to speed up after 2010, the reduction in the

:36:17. > :36:19.number of Parliamentary seats by 50, the curtailing of the boundary

:36:20. > :36:23.review and Parliamentary process while at the same time increasing

:36:24. > :36:27.the number of members at this house either previous Prime Minister by

:36:28. > :36:31.numbers in comparison to number of appointments by his predecessors

:36:32. > :36:38.made the day either Labour or Conservative prime ministers, raised

:36:39. > :36:42.a few eyebrows to say the least. The noble Lord is rightfully speaking

:36:43. > :36:44.about the need for action, to do with the funding of political

:36:45. > :36:51.parties and the noble Lord Lord Granada made similar points. I think

:36:52. > :36:55.it is important that any changes that take place to not unfairly

:36:56. > :37:03.penalised or give advantage to any political party. My own party, the

:37:04. > :37:08.Labour Party, its histories from the Tribune movement. It was formed on

:37:09. > :37:16.the 27th of every 1900 in Farringdon Road and elected its first 's Labour

:37:17. > :37:22.MPs that same year. Kia Hardy and the other person's name went into

:37:23. > :37:28.history, Richard Bell, elected for Derby and there has been a member in

:37:29. > :37:32.Derby ever since. But the first candidate was in 1870 when somebody

:37:33. > :37:37.stood as the Liberal Labour candidate in the Southwark

:37:38. > :37:45.by-election. He was described as an "English radical agitator of humble

:37:46. > :37:56.origins". I would have liked to have met him. It should start from as

:37:57. > :38:01.level as a place as possible. That is not to say that any party or

:38:02. > :38:04.candidate may not have an advantage, they may have a better candidate.

:38:05. > :38:08.They may have more fertile ground from which they seek they may run a

:38:09. > :38:15.better campaign, they may have raised more money, and they may have

:38:16. > :38:19.more party workers. But looking at the bill itself, is builds on the

:38:20. > :38:24.act and builds on what a pickle party is. I have no objection to

:38:25. > :38:28.setting a limit on the size of donations but I would probably want

:38:29. > :38:38.to explore the figures and the dates to see if they are the correct ones.

:38:39. > :38:41.I welcome some of the measures. I have no problem in exploring the

:38:42. > :38:45.changes to the way that physical parties receive funding and if they

:38:46. > :38:49.are going to implement any change in respect to donations and Sirius

:38:50. > :38:56.consideration is going to have two be given. I am so a bit nervous at

:38:57. > :39:01.the mention of the word registered supporter. I am sure the noble Lords

:39:02. > :39:09.will be aware of why that is the case. This whole area needs to be

:39:10. > :39:13.revised, and the sooner that happens, the better." He three

:39:14. > :39:16.concerns the functions of the electoral commission. I am of the

:39:17. > :39:20.view that the committee on standards of public life led by the noble Lord

:39:21. > :39:27.should be invited by the government to take a detailed look in its

:39:28. > :39:31.functions, it has been in existence since 2000 and I think the time has

:39:32. > :39:39.come again for that review to be done. The noble Lord Lord Triesman,

:39:40. > :39:43.has made important points and I say that as a former member of the

:39:44. > :39:49.editorial commission, there are many good members, I have huge respect

:39:50. > :39:56.for them. They work as hard as they can to do that within the powers

:39:57. > :39:59.that are given them. So very much a supporter hoping that something can

:40:00. > :40:04.be done to get this under way sooner rather than later.

:40:05. > :40:12.Compelling points were made about the facts that donations in Northern

:40:13. > :40:15.Ireland are still secret. There should be a decision made about

:40:16. > :40:21.whether it's time to make those donations public. We need a

:40:22. > :40:25.consolidation act to get the law, which is specialised, into one

:40:26. > :40:29.place, so it's easy to understand for the practitioners, the

:40:30. > :40:33.candidates, party workers, members and the general public. These are

:40:34. > :40:38.important and need to be dealt W I will leave my remarks there. I thank

:40:39. > :40:45.Lord Tyler for bringing this here today. I look forward to the noble

:40:46. > :40:50.Lord's response. My Lord's, I'm grateful to the noble

:40:51. > :40:53.Lord, Lord aler, for the -- Tyler, for the opportunity to debate this

:40:54. > :41:01.important issue and to all noble Lord's who have spoken in the

:41:02. > :41:05.debate. I congraph Lord Tyler, with whom I have been debating for the

:41:06. > :41:11.past 57 years, he said 55, I make it 57. I congratulate him on producing

:41:12. > :41:15.a substantial piece of legislation, a richer diet than we're normally

:41:16. > :41:22.used to on a Friday. As he said, this is based on work from MPs of

:41:23. > :41:27.all three parties, supported by some professional input. I'm grateful to

:41:28. > :41:30.him for his kind words and I reciprocate and compliment him on

:41:31. > :41:34.his consistent campaign on matters of constitutional reform over a

:41:35. > :41:38.number of decades. As he himself indicated, he's been here long

:41:39. > :41:42.enough to know that a bill which gets its second reading on the first

:41:43. > :41:48.of two Houses on the last sitting Friday has a short life expectancy.

:41:49. > :41:55.But it's an important subject which deserves an airing. I was struck by

:41:56. > :42:00.what Lord Wallis said opening a short debate on a similar subject on

:42:01. > :42:03.November 3 last year. This is what he said, "My Lord's, party funding

:42:04. > :42:07.reform is rather like Lord's reform. We come back to it every other year,

:42:08. > :42:12.or at least once every Parliament. We get round to setting up a Working

:42:13. > :42:18.Group, the parties fail to agree, we go away and significant change is

:42:19. > :42:25.rarely made." End of quote. I think that parallel is ininstructive I

:42:26. > :42:30.will return to it later. The current regime to regulate political parties

:42:31. > :42:36.and party funding was established in the PPER Referendum Act in 2000. I

:42:37. > :42:39.think the noble Lord was our respective party spokesman as it

:42:40. > :42:43.went through the other place. Since then there have been a number of

:42:44. > :42:47.proposals to reform the system. Indeed both the proposals of the

:42:48. > :42:51.Committee on Standards in Public Life in 2011 and those of Sir Hayden

:42:52. > :42:58.Philips in 2007 are drawn on in this bill. However, despite a decade of

:42:59. > :43:03.talks, there has been no cross-party agreement on changes to party

:43:04. > :43:07.funding. Wide ranging talks were held in 2012 and 2013 with

:43:08. > :43:12.representatives meeting seven times. Many of the issues raised by noble

:43:13. > :43:16.Lord's today were covered during those talks. Unfortunately, as on

:43:17. > :43:20.previous occasions, the parties did not reach agreement during those

:43:21. > :43:24.talks. No consensus has emerged since then and understandably, the

:43:25. > :43:29.Government is reluctant to make changes without that consent. In an

:43:30. > :43:34.earlier debate on March 9 last year the noble Lord Tyler quoted Winston

:43:35. > :43:39.Churchill in 1948, who counselled against one party imposing its will

:43:40. > :43:43.on another on mat affecting the -- matters affecting the interests of

:43:44. > :43:46.rival parties. Several noble Lord's have called for cross-party talks on

:43:47. > :43:49.this subject to be resumed. For these to be worthwhile there would

:43:50. > :43:54.need to be some agreement about the basis of the talks, so we simply

:43:55. > :44:00.don't repeat the fruitless exercises of the past. I will return to this

:44:01. > :44:07.point at the end of my remarks. This bill uses the proposals of the CSPL

:44:08. > :44:11.from 2011 in particular as its foundation. We must remember that

:44:12. > :44:16.report did not receive cross-party support. Indeed there were I senting

:44:17. > :44:19.opinions within the report itself. Both Labour and Conservative members

:44:20. > :44:27.of the committee disagreed with its conclusions and Lord Bew reminded us

:44:28. > :44:31.this afternoon. The bill suggests re-allocating and increasing state

:44:32. > :44:35.funding for political parties in clauses 10 to 14, a subject touched

:44:36. > :44:38.on. The Government does not believe there is any public appetite for

:44:39. > :44:43.more taxpayer funding of politicians and political parties at this time.

:44:44. > :44:49.Noble Lord's will be familiar with the vice of Nick Clegg in a debate

:44:50. > :44:53.in the other place on November 23, 2011, I quote, "The case cannot be

:44:54. > :44:58.made for greater state funding of political parties at a time when

:44:59. > :45:02.bubts are being squeezed and economic recovery remains the

:45:03. > :45:07.highest priority." That advice seems as relevant today as it was then.

:45:08. > :45:11.Substantial demands are to be made on the public purse to restore the

:45:12. > :45:18.building in which politicians work, it might test the public's patience

:45:19. > :45:22.if we were to ask for significantly greater support for the trade we

:45:23. > :45:24.carry on in it. We want to reduce the cost of politics, we are

:45:25. > :45:29.reducing the size of the House of Commons, which I hope noble Lord's

:45:30. > :45:34.will support when the relevant SI comes before us. Freezing

:45:35. > :45:40.ministerial pay, and stopping the unanticipated hikes in the cost of

:45:41. > :45:43.short money. Often - we tried to reduce the number of peers in the

:45:44. > :45:49.last Parliament, as I know to my cost. But it didn't have the

:45:50. > :45:53.consensus that we need. Often the starting point of our discussions is

:45:54. > :45:57.that the spending of political parties should be reduced and that

:45:58. > :46:02.in the absence of stricter rules an arms race is taking place between

:46:03. > :46:06.the parties. Research published by the CSPL in August 2016 show that

:46:07. > :46:12.this is not the case. There has been no arms race in party funding in

:46:13. > :46:16.recent years. My party spent less in the 2015 general election than in

:46:17. > :46:24.2010, that was a lower figure than in 2005. The less we spend, the

:46:25. > :46:29.better we seem to do. Taking into account inflation, that research by

:46:30. > :46:35.CSPL showed a steep fall in central party spending since 1997. And

:46:36. > :46:38.neither of the two main parties in the 2015 general elections, neither

:46:39. > :46:46.of the two main parties, came close to its spending limit. Like other

:46:47. > :46:50.recent attempts at reform, this bill suggests complex and, at times,

:46:51. > :46:55.controversial structural changes to the party funding system. Talks that

:46:56. > :46:59.are focussed on these ideas, so far, have always failed. Perhaps real

:47:00. > :47:03.progress could be made if the focus was instead on smaller reforms that

:47:04. > :47:08.may gain cross-party support. Here I return to the parallel drawn by the

:47:09. > :47:15.noble Lord Wallis with Lord's reform, as I know to my cost. Heroic

:47:16. > :47:21.attempts to reform your Lordship's House failed because there was no

:47:22. > :47:25.consensus between the two Houses and between the two main parties.

:47:26. > :47:28.Subsequently there has been incremental reform with two Private

:47:29. > :47:33.Members' Bills reaching the statute book and with the possibility of

:47:34. > :47:37.further reform coming from the Lord speaker's committee. I wonder

:47:38. > :47:40.whether Lorens Burns who has tackled difficult subjects such as hunting

:47:41. > :47:46.with dogs, the trade union act and Lord's reform might there after

:47:47. > :47:50.apply his resourcefulness and ingenuity to the subject -- to this

:47:51. > :47:55.subject. As with incremental reform of our House, I think we should

:47:56. > :47:58.adopt the same approach with party funding, moving ahead with smaller

:47:59. > :48:03.reforms which may command broad support, rather than trying and

:48:04. > :48:08.failing to achieve an all or nothing solution, as this bill does. I was

:48:09. > :48:13.interested by the, by what the noble Lord Bew said in the debate on March

:48:14. > :48:18.9. Commenting on my party's evidence to Lord burns, which suggested

:48:19. > :48:27.smaller reforms rather than an all-or-nothing big bang solution, he

:48:28. > :48:31.said, "That is an interesting idea, we could approach those things in

:48:32. > :48:35.the event we don't achieve the big bang solution. He repeated that

:48:36. > :48:40.suggestion again this afternoon. These smaller reforms could include

:48:41. > :48:44.finding practical ways to encourage more and smaller donations from

:48:45. > :48:47.wider audiences. As the minister for the constitution said when he

:48:48. > :48:50.appears before the constitution committee earlier this week, the

:48:51. > :48:54.Government is open to constructive debate and dialogue on small-scale

:48:55. > :48:59.measures that could command broad support, if there was a positive

:49:00. > :49:02.reaction to such a potential step from the main political parties.

:49:03. > :49:06.Today's debate has shown that actually there is such an appetite

:49:07. > :49:10.and I'll return to that in a moment, when I've addressed some of the

:49:11. > :49:15.issues raised in the debate. Both the noble Lord Bew and the noble

:49:16. > :49:20.Lord Rennard raised the issue about the lack of transparency of

:49:21. > :49:23.donations in Northern Ireland. On January 5, the SOS for Northern

:49:24. > :49:26.Ireland -- Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced he would

:49:27. > :49:34.write to Northern Ireland political parties seeking their views on

:49:35. > :49:37.ending the kusht arrangements on -- current arrangements on donations

:49:38. > :49:41.and loans to political parties. He remains keen to make progress on the

:49:42. > :49:47.issue of donations to political parties now that the election has

:49:48. > :49:54.concluded. The noble Lord also asked about Lord hodge son's review by

:49:55. > :49:59.third party campaigning. The Government welcomed that review of

:50:00. > :50:11.third party campaign in the 2015 general election and we welcomed his

:50:12. > :50:17.conclusions. He suggested recommendations on tightening the

:50:18. > :50:23.rules but also on relaxing them. My noble friend Lord True raised two

:50:24. > :50:27.important issues, firstly, impermissible donations and he quite

:50:28. > :50:31.rightly said that all three parties have been affected but he focussed

:50:32. > :50:34.his comments on the Michael Ground case, and asked whether the

:50:35. > :50:38.Electoral Commission should be able to secure the return of a donations

:50:39. > :50:43.which are later found to be the proceeds of crime. The Electoral

:50:44. > :50:47.Commission has recommended that the rules on company donations should be

:50:48. > :50:51.reviewed following their investigation of donations made by

:50:52. > :50:56.5th avenue limited to the Liberal Democrats in 2005. We are

:50:57. > :51:01.considering this issue alongside a number of other issues related to

:51:02. > :51:06.donation matters. My noble friend also raised the question of reports

:51:07. > :51:12.about ?250,000 donation offered to the Green Party before the Richmond

:51:13. > :51:17.by-election. This was denied by the Green Party. On the Electoral

:51:18. > :51:22.Commission records do not show any such donation being made. Laws

:51:23. > :51:26.around such donations relate largely to ensuring they come from a

:51:27. > :51:31.permissible source and that they are properly declared to the Electoral

:51:32. > :51:39.Commission in order to comply with transparency requirements. If this

:51:40. > :51:43.case had done so, it unlikely would have broken any laws. There's a good

:51:44. > :51:47.question about whether the law applies to parties as well as

:51:48. > :51:51.individuals. We need to reflect on that further. The noble Lord made a

:51:52. > :51:55.valid point about social media and the changing landscape of political

:51:56. > :52:00.campaigning. I agree with him that it would be better if all parties

:52:01. > :52:04.were less reliant on large donations and we had a broughter base of

:52:05. > :52:10.membership donations on which to rely. My Lord's, this bill proposing

:52:11. > :52:13.a number of reforms to political party funding, including caps on

:52:14. > :52:18.donations and new schemes for public funding. These are complex

:52:19. > :52:23.structural reforms which could only be taken forward on the basis of

:52:24. > :52:26.cross-party consensus. No such consensus exists at this time. The

:52:27. > :52:30.Government believes it is premature to consider a bill at this timement

:52:31. > :52:34.However, my Lord's, anticipating there would be an appetite in

:52:35. > :52:41.today's debate to make progress and to try to break the log jam we now

:52:42. > :52:43.have, I spoke to the minister for the constitution earlier this

:52:44. > :52:48.morning. He would be happy to have a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord

:52:49. > :52:53.Tyler, and other Lord's, who have spoken in this debase to find a way

:52:54. > :52:56.forward, along the lines that I have suggested of incremental reforms

:52:57. > :53:01.that can achieve cross-party support. Now, that may not be the

:53:02. > :53:05.giant step forward the noble Lord was hoping for in his opening

:53:06. > :53:09.remarks, but I hope he will accept it as a constructive response to

:53:10. > :53:12.this debate and a helpful way forward, even though we can't take

:53:13. > :53:20.his bill very much further forward today. I'm extremely grateful to a

:53:21. > :53:24.number of members for giving up their Friday to discuss what may

:53:25. > :53:29.have seemed a rather arcane subject to some and indeed one that because

:53:30. > :53:33.of the nature of this bill and the limited time that it's obviously

:53:34. > :53:38.going to be given to it between now and the end this session, to rather

:53:39. > :53:43.an academic subject as well. I hope that the noble Lord Young will take

:53:44. > :53:47.it that every single person who has contributed to this debate today is

:53:48. > :53:51.effectively echoing something must be done. I'll come back to the

:53:52. > :53:55.particular suggestion he made at the end of his speech in a moment. I

:53:56. > :53:57.want to put on record two or three points that have come out through

:53:58. > :54:02.the debate, which may need to be put on one side. First, I am not

:54:03. > :54:06.suggesting and it has never been suggested there should be a net

:54:07. > :54:10.increase in state funding. Indeed, in the bill, as I think the noble

:54:11. > :54:16.Lord recognises there is recognition that we could find some ways to make

:54:17. > :54:20.substantial savings. He himself referred to my right honourable

:54:21. > :54:23.friend Nick Clegg who in his evidence to the Select Committee, I

:54:24. > :54:27.think colleagues on the Select Committee will redual, actually

:54:28. > :54:33.Kated what -- indicated what savings might be made and committed himself

:54:34. > :54:39.to that, that any change should incur no net increase in state

:54:40. > :54:42.funding. Some reallocation yes. Lord Rennard said we have over the years

:54:43. > :54:49.put forward suggestions about how savings could be made in other ways.

:54:50. > :54:54.This was a point raised by local authority Whitfy and my -- Whitty

:54:55. > :55:01.and my noble friend. I am very conscious of the point made by the

:55:02. > :55:08.Lord, my particular bill has been substantially overtaken by concerns

:55:09. > :55:12.about the way in which funding has gone into referenda campaigns. I

:55:13. > :55:15.would hope that the noble Lord, the minister, would recognise that is a

:55:16. > :55:20.very important additional issue that we should all be thinking about and

:55:21. > :55:25.addressing now. Before there might be another one, in two or three

:55:26. > :55:29.years' time, we don't want a repeat of that particular concern.

:55:30. > :55:39.My Lords, I turn now ready to this issue of consensus. How does the

:55:40. > :55:45.noble Lord know that there is a consensus? Any more than Mr Skidmore

:55:46. > :55:48.knows there was a consensus. Until the government actually accept the

:55:49. > :55:51.recommendation, the very clear recommendation of the select

:55:52. > :55:55.committee that some new initiative must be taken, we do not know what

:55:56. > :55:59.there is a consensus, how far that consensus may go. It is already

:56:00. > :56:06.clear, that the noble Lord and I truly agree with every point that

:56:07. > :56:10.was made, to catch up some of the issues, true to his name, I think

:56:11. > :56:14.that he speaks with considerable authority about the difficulties

:56:15. > :56:18.that may be faced by those who have got too much money to throw around

:56:19. > :56:19.in the present situation. But every single member who has contributed

:56:20. > :56:27.has clearly injured -- has clearly indicated, we have

:56:28. > :56:33.got to address these issues. That is the point that the noble Lord will

:56:34. > :56:36.take back. I make one further point. He has demonstrated not just today

:56:37. > :56:43.but on previous occasions, that he is very sensitive to the concerns

:56:44. > :56:53.that are often expressed, where we are not direct the affected by how

:56:54. > :56:54.elections are run but I think have a very proper constitutional

:56:55. > :56:58.responsibility to look hard at electoral law. I wonder therefore

:56:59. > :57:03.whether he would commit himself to taking part in the discussions that

:57:04. > :57:07.his honourable friend has now agreed we might have. Yes I think we could

:57:08. > :57:11.break the logjam but I very much hope that the noble Lord will be

:57:12. > :57:18.prepared to take part with us. One further point I want to make. We

:57:19. > :57:23.cannot ignore the advice of the electoral commission. They have made

:57:24. > :57:25.a recommendation about reviewing the definitions of regulated candidate

:57:26. > :57:31.spending and regulated critical parties spending that had been in

:57:32. > :57:35.place since 2000, and the focus on spending in constituencies. It is a

:57:36. > :57:40.major theme of my speech earlier today, of my bill and concern in the

:57:41. > :57:45.public at the moment. If we are to regain the trust that the global

:57:46. > :57:47.Lord quite rightly identifies, we have to identify the issue and I'm

:57:48. > :57:53.sure that the electoral commission would be happy to address it. With

:57:54. > :57:57.that my Lords I would like to request your Lordships house to give

:57:58. > :58:03.the bill a second reading. The question is that this bill Nabi read

:58:04. > :58:12.the second time as many now say content, not content. The content is

:58:13. > :58:17.have it. Bylaws I move that this Bill be committed to a committee of

:58:18. > :58:24.the whole house. Has many of that opinion say content. The country not

:58:25. > :58:29.content, the not content have it. My Lords I beg to leave that the house

:58:30. > :58:33.do now adjourned. That the house to now adjourned.