10/03/2017 House of Lords

On the homeless this reduction Bill. -- homelessness. I understand no

amendments have been set down to this bill and no noble lord has

indicated a wish to move a manuscript and or speak to

committee. Although I understand maybe from the Labour frontbenchers

a question is to be asked. Unless therefore any noble Lord

objects, I'd bid to move that the mood of commitment be discharged.

The question is that the commitment to the discharge. I will be brief at

I want to congratulate the noble Lord and the government with

succeeding with this bill which is very welcome indeed. I hope the

noble lord could take the opportunity after the bill passes

which it will, to take up a couple of points with the government, not

immediately, perhaps. A report has been published this week which

raises a point about paragraph 18 on the code of practice, which raises a

point about the revision of codes and the method in doing that.

Obviously I'm not expecting any kind of formal response today, but may be

the noble Lord could look at this and maybe he could also, in a short

time, be able to invite the government to say how it is going to

approach viewing the funding of ?61 million in the light of possible

increased numbers of homelessness rising because of the housing

benefit issue which has been so controversial this week. Again I'm

not expecting the noble Lord to provide the answer but this is

something which should be looked at in the next period. Could I add our

thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his work on the bill which has

been appreciated within the parliament and also outside and I

think it shows that the amount of work done prior to the presentation

of a bill both in the other place and here, reaps rewards, because the

bill is a very sound bill and I would like to pay tribute to noble

Lord bold Best for his work on this which has got us to the position we

are in -- Lord Best. I thank you for your kind remarks. I will certainly

undertake to speak with the noble Lord, the minister, about the

question you raise, the review as to whether the sums allocated to find

the homelessness reduction Bill is sufficient, that review will happen

after the end of the first year of operation and before the end of the

second year of operation so that before two years are up we will know

whether enough money has been made available to make the homelessness

bill reduction really happen, and if insufficient funds have been

available I will be the first to be saying that. With those remarks, I

beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged. The

question is that the order of commitment be discharged. As many of

that opinion will say content, to the country not content. The

contemporary macro have it. -- the contents have it. I understand no

members have been set down to this bill and that no noble Lord has

indicated a wish to move a manuscript the moment or to speak in

the committee. Unless therefore any noble Lord objects I beg to move

that the order of commitment be discharged. The question is that the

order of commitment be discharged, as many of that opinion will say

content and to the contrary not content. The contents have it. ... I

beg to move that the Bill be now we are

the bill be now read a second time. Combating violence against women and

domestic pilots, -- domestic violence, has been guided through

conviction in the other place, and it has the purpose of unblocking the

logjam which has thus far delayed the ratification of the Council of

Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and

domestic violence. Better known as the Istanbul convention. It also

puts on the statutory footing important mechanisms to hold the

government to account on the progress towards ratification. The

UK signed the convention in June 2012 having played an important role

in the negotiating and drafting of it and previous governments

including a range of new legislation that prepares the UK from compliance

with the treaty. And repeating verbal commitments to the principal

ratification, the progress has been stalled, and maybe five years on

remains are ratified. The Istanbul convention is a unique

ground-breaking piece of international legislation which

enshrines the basic human rights of a woman and girls to live free from

violence in both public and private sphere. My lords, preventing

violence against women and domestic violence can save lives and reduce

human suffering. The convention focus on three important aims. To

prevent violence against women, to prevent victims and survivors of

abuse and prosecute perpetrators, and it brings greater coherence and

consistency and strategic direction to the important work already

undertaken by organisations, communities and governments that aim

to eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination against women.

And promote equality between women and men. It has been hailed as a

best piece of international policy and practice for eliminating

violence against women that exists anywhere. It is a first piece of

legislation that sets minimum standards for government responses

and victims and survivors, of gender-based violence. The Istanbul

convention is broad in scope and the aims are very specific. Covering

criminal, civil and migration law, it sets minimum standards for the

protection of survivors and for access to services. Governments will

try to ratify the Convention and they are required to prevent

violence and bring about an attitude change. It covers many

manifestations of gender-based violence including physical and

psychological abuse. Stalking, sexual violence including rape,

forced marriages, female genital mutilation and the so-called honour

crimes. The Istanbul convention is unique in that it understands that

states cannot be responsible for preventing bail and is against women

and domestic violence on their own. -- preventing violence. It calls on

communities to tackle cross-border issues, because it wants members of

society to reach the ultimate goal of a world free from all forms of

islands against women and domestic violence. It recognises that women

are disproportionately affected by sexual and domestic violence because

underlying gender inequalities which are also compounded by abuse, the

convention also places an emphasis on challenging misogynistic

attitudes that perpetrate the gender inequality as a means of preventing

violence and abuse. Preventative measures are not the only important

issue. Protecting victims and survivors and providing them with

appropriate support is vital. State that ratified the Istanbul

convention are required to ensure that sufficient shelters exist in

adequate geographical distribution. Ratifying the Istanbul convention

will put a duty on the government to ensure that women's refuge is exist

and provide support at a time when women need it most. It also puts a

statutory footing on the provision of rape crisis centres, 24 hour

advice lines, and access to useful information. The Council of Europe

says that it should be borne in mind that it is not enough to set up

protection structures and support services for victims, it is equally

important to make sure that victims are informed of their rights and

know how and where to get help. I do believe that this important

consideration, that anyone can be a victim of sexual violence or

domestic abuse, regardless of economic background, age, ethnic

religion or gender, however we know that there are certain

characteristics that increased the risks. For example, poorer women or,

or disabled women are at a greater risk of domestic abuse. Women from

some ethnic minorities or cultural backgrounds are at greater risk of

certain forms of gender-based violence. My Lords, one question is

asked frequently, what about the men? I would like to deal with this

because this was a point of contention in the other place. The

convention itself quite explicitly addresses this issue in Article four

where it makes clear that the provision applies to all persons,

regardless of gender, and a whole range of other protected

characteristics, however the convention primarily focuses on

women, and it is important that it does because sexual violence and

domestic abuse affect women to a hugely disproportionate extent. Both

in terms of prevalence and severity, in England and Wales in 2015 over 90

2% of the prosecutions brought for domestic abuse involved a male

perpetrators and the female victim. Two women are weak die at the hands

of their partner or their former partner. This does not mean that

those crimes committed by women against men, or men against men are

less serious. They are serious, but to ignore the gender dynamic of

these types of crime would be wrong. One woman in four in the UK will

experience sexual or domestic by a sin their lifetime. The sheer scale

of the problem does demand that we take this much more experience. The

joint committee of human rights in their report of 2014/15 entitled

violence against women and girls recommended that the UK Government

ratified the Istanbul convention. They raised concerns at a time that

the internal ministry group had insufficient powers with witnesses

to the committee criticising the group for not taking a holistic

approach towards ending violence against women and girls because of

the lack of representation from immigration officials. The Asylum

aid recommended at the time that the Immigration Minister and the UK Visa

and immigration department should have representations on the groups

to ensure that the issues arising in these areas were dealt with

effectively. I would appreciate if the Minister would write a response

today or later but I would like to see these issues addressed. On the

24th of November last year I asked the Minister kept -- question in

your Lordships house, whether the government had ratified the Istanbul

convention and when did they intend to do so? The minister in -- the

Minister said at the time that the government was committed to

ratifying but in order to do so they would need to legislate to take

extra terrestrial jurisdiction over a wide range of offences. --. I am

sorry, extraterritorial. Did I get that wrong? I thank the laws for

taking that and pointing it out because I took that rather wider

than I intended to do so. Thank you very much for correcting me! I shall

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

The fact that perpetrators can evade prosecution by committing crimes as

abhorrent as grape whilst abroad should stop. There is a precedent on

ETJ, the government already exercises such power for similar

offences committed against children overseas and exercises ETJ in a

range of other areas, for a example in relation to drugs offences,

financial crime, terrorism and other forms of organised crime. I am

pleased to see that the Prime Minister has committed herself to

overseeing a new bill on domestic buyer and is and I do hope that such

legislation will include the changes necessary to bring the UK into line

with article 44 of the Istanbul convention. That is those in

relation to ETJ. When a minister replies I wonder if she could

outline the intent of this new legislation on whether in fact it

will allow the government to take over the necessary offences,

ensuring the UK are compliant with the convention, thereby paving the

way for ratification. There is real need for action in the effort when

violence against women. Two women are weak or killed by their partners

or former partners in England and where is alone -- two women are per

week. In the same time frame across the UK 87,000 500 rapes and more

than 400,000 sexual assaults were reported to the police. It is

well-known that most cases of sexual assault and rape do go unreported so

we cannot underestimate the scale of the impact on women and children in

our communities. There is clearly a need for action. The UN special

report on violence against women has said that violence against women and

girls is the most pervasive human rights violation we face globally.

Whether in times of peace, conflict or post-conflict transition. It is

so normalised that we can hardly even noticed how much we put up with

and I was moved by some of the contributions from members on the

other place who spoke courageously of their own experience and it does

affect us all. The violence against women is not natural and not

inevitable so can I now turn to the specifics of the bill before us? It

is made up of three clauses, it requires the secretary of state to

report to both houses on the steps that is being taken to enable the UK

to ratify the Convention. It requires the government to come

forward with a timetable by which it will ratify the convention. I am

pleased with the manner in which the noble man -- baroness, the minister,

met with me this week and before that to discuss this bill in the

run-up to the debate and I welcome the government support for this

bill. Clause one recommends that the secretary of state should lay report

to both houses of parliament setting out the steps necessary to ratify. I

understand that this is not only including passing legislation

through both houses, but also the devolved administrations in Scotland

and Northern Ireland. I know the government are committed to working

with a devolved administration and I welcome that commitment. Clause two

requires the government to make annual reports to both houses on the

progress towards ratification no later than the 1st of November in

each year leading up to the ratification. This report comes with

a commitment from the government to make an oral statement to Parliament

so that MPs can hold the government to account. The convention commits

the government to thorough reporting requirements through annual reports

to the Council of Europe's expert group. It is important that

parliamentarians have opportunities to scrutinise this report. The

committee stage in the Commons the government committed to make an oral

statement on the compliance with the convention post-ratification. I

would be grateful if the Minister could make a similar commitment so

that these issues can be debated in your Lordships house, rather than

perhaps a report put in the Lords library. The report is a short and

simple one, but it has proved to be an important one which will unlock

the logjam in the government department. I do hope that it will

lead to the ratification as soon as possible. We have the opportunity in

this place to shape and develop legislation but we do need to take

the license of our responsibilities as well. I have been heartened by

the powerful civic society movement of women and men across the UK who

have campaigned for the UK to ratify the convention. The breadth of

support from organisations and activists show the strength of

feeling that is on this issue. There is a very inspiring campaign run by

volunteers which has helped to mobilise thousands of people the

length and breadth of the country, to engage with MPs in order to get

this bill through this place. I feel the women who have led this campaign

should be very proud. It is often important that they are out there in

front of issues such as this. Women activists have campaigned and

Parliament needs to try and keep up with it. In the other place the bill

was at Birtley stupidly -- was expertly Steward lay in the face of

some adversity but the overwhelming cross-party support from the

opposition and the government benches, we have the opportunity of

oversight towards ratification and the timetable, albeit hopefully

short, within which this can be achieved. My Lords, I beg to move.

The question is that this bill now be read a second time.

I congratulate the noble lady for bringing forward this bill and

opening it so admirably and comprehensively. Yesterday afternoon

when I enquired in the whips office how many were down to speak on this

debate I was somewhat surprised, and really rather shocked, to find there

were in fact then only five are now six and that they included not a

single male temporal peer, and so I put my name down because heaven

knows this is a worthy and a compelling cause and it is deserving

of support is no less from men than from women. My Lords, we all know

the appalling prevalence still today of violence towards women, both

domestic and in wider society. I sat as a judge at various levels for 28

years and I therefore came across perhaps more than my fair share of

this violence, particularly in my earlier years as a High Court judge,

sitting at the Old Bailey and then around the country on the circuit.

Murder, rapes, all of those dreadful sorts of offences. My Lords, I have

few boasts to my name, by way of legal achievement, few jewels in my

judicial crown, but I can and I do boast of being the first judge in

this jurisdiction in, I think it was 1990, to rule that a husband is not

permitted in law to have intercourse with his wife quite simply

whensoever he chooses. In short, that there is such an offence as

marital rape, a decision said at the time initially to fly in the face of

centuries of established legal principle, but which, in fact,

happily was then upheld both by the Court of Appeal and by the appeal

committee in your Lordships house. My Lords, reading the excellent

Doctor Whiteford speech towards the end of the debate in the other place

on third reading, I was struck by this particular passage. If your

Lordships will allow me, I will quote it from column 1334 of

Hansard. She said this, on reflection, it strikes me powerfully

that Parliament has frequently be left playing catch up on progress

for women from those who campaigned for women's suffrage for more than a

century before it was achieved to the trade unionists who fought for

equal pay for women years before the equal pay act 1970 came into force

on the women who in the 1970s setup rep futures -- refuges for women

fleeing domestic abuse at a time when there was absolutely no support

from the state or the authorities for women experiencing violence or

coercive control from an intimate partner, a time when rape within

marriage was not even a crime, every step of the way it is citizens who

have driven progressive change, sisters have had to do it for

themselves. Well, my Lords, I thought it was time for a brother to

enter the fray. Of course I recognise as Mr Nuttall

emphasise in the debate in the other emphasise in the debate in the other

place, that there is all too much violence in society and indeed in

certain domestic contexts against men and boys, as well. And that the

Istanbul convention and therefore this bill on its face appeared to do

nothing for them. But there can be no doubt as the Nobel baroness made

plain, it is women who suffer disproportionately, they suffer most

from the hands of the opposite sex and there is no basis for suggesting

that advancing their cause as this bill proposes will set back the

cause of male victims, quite the reverse. Anything that raises the

stakes and raises the public's awareness of and revulsion at

violence generally in society will redound to the advantage of all the

victims. My lords, of course I recognise that this bill and indeed

the Istanbul convention itself, of itself does little in the way of

altering the substantive law under which we seek to deter and control

violence against women. But to say it does nothing is in fact only an

exaggeration, the convention requires we broaden our juristic --

juristic -- do restriction. And that is why we have to recognise

now as it does the need for some small further delay be on even the

years since we initially signed it. To the delay, is to identify

precisely and then to satisfy this requirement for extraterritorial

juristic but as Mr Nuttall himself said in the other place, the purpose

is to try to tie down the government, to do something and to

stop this matter from drifting on. As has already been noted in the

other place, they voted to pass this bill by a votes to just one, and you

will readily agree that it will be nothing sort of disgraceful and

indeed deeply damaging to the reputation of this house if we don't

now make sure that it secures safe and speedy passage at all stages

through our house. Therefore we wish it God speed to secure its early

passage if not in this session than certainly in the next. My lords, we

want to give our wholehearted support to this bill. I've been

following this issue for some while and have participated in previous

debates and put down questions. I want to congratulate the doctor in

the other place and the baroness for the hard work they and others have

done to get it so far and indeed to the many agencies getting the bill

to us today. In the face of a number of cutbacks and closures of women's

services and refugees, we need a step change -- refuges. We should be

giving a lead on this important area, violence against women is a

tragic evil because it the effects can be so devastating and

long-lasting and widespread. Evil not simply because it is violence

but because it seeks to deny a fundamental human dignity which I

believe comes from being created in the image of God, and whatever form

the violence comes in, rape or forced marriage or psychological or

physical abuse, gender-based violence against women in therapy

attempts to reduce women to passive objects -- invariably. It seeks to

deny them the status of personhood. As a safe place of council within

every local community, the church often finds itself on the front

line, listening to the stories of women who have faced violence and

who don't know where else to turn. It is one of the greatest and

hardest privileges of priesthood to listen to a woman or indeed

sometimes to a man, although this is overwhelmingly an issue for women

and we must not underplay that, although we want to make sure men

are given protection. This must not distract us from this important

bill. When we hear someone telling their story of abuse, sometimes for

the very first time, sometimes only just beginning to realise that

actually for all sorts of social reasons they have actually colluded

with it and they now beginning to realise it is simply wrong. And the

need to then help them find the right support which is profoundly

difficult especially in places, like rural areas. I want to pay tribute

to the many organisations who are working with churches and helping us

up and down the country responding to violence against women. But those

churches that are supporting, sometimes offering premises and

funding, for refuges, and especially a Christian charity whose work in

training clergy is invaluable. The baroness has already rehearsed some

of the statistics and I won't say those again, although I want to note

how horrific they are when one stops and looks at what is actually still

going on. There are other areas which have not been picked up in

here and in the past I put down questions about, for example, how

many young women under the age of marriage in this country are being

taken abroad and are marrying and are coming back to this country and

it turns out that we have no idea. We have no idea how many such women

are coming back having been married under laws overseas will stop

sometimes possibly polygamists... We just don't know. In recent years the

government has made substantial progress on legislating against a

gender-based violence and I want to pay tribute to our Prime Minister

who all sides of this house will agree has worked tirelessly in her

Home Secretary to address many of Home Secretary to address many of

the key legislative areas. Legislation to combat forced

marriage, female genital mutilation, modern slavery, controlling

behaviour and stalking. And although that legislation shows that UK one

of the strongest legislative frameworks in the word, the Prime

Minister's work as Home Secretary to improve police reporting and

responding to domestic abuse is also to be celebrated and commended. In

that context it is regrettable that this bill is required, given that

Her Majesty's government has repeatedly stated commitment to

ratifying the convention. In answer to a series of written questions in

2014 after the convention came into force, the government said justice

ministers are considering the extent to which we need to amend the

criminal law of England and Wales full compliance with Article 44

prior to ratification of the convention -- for. Three years later

the justice ministers are still deliberating. That is a failure in

the political will ultimately. Being charitable to the government, we

could say there have been a few political distractions over the past

year. However I do hope that the new reporting requirements will

encourage the government to throw their weight unreservedly behind

this legislative change that is required for ratification and this

issue of territorial jurisdiction in particular. Ratification of the

Istanbul convention will not only bolster the domestic framework for

combating violence against women, acting as a tool by which civil

society can hold the government to account on the provision of

resources to combat gender-based violence. Our ratification of the

convention also has an international dimension as the joint committee on

human rights put it, the delay in ratifying the Istanbul convention

could harm the UK's international reputation as a world leader in

combating violence against women and girls. Ratification of the

convention would be the clearest signal of our commitment to ending

the injustice of gender-based violence. It would commit us to

sharing best practice internationally and it would

strengthen the Istanbul convention itself as a marker by which other

countries might be held to account. I sincerely hope that the government

gives this bill a swift passage through the house and that it

follows the passage of this bill within equally swift timetable for

ratification of the Istanbul convention. My Lords, I welcome

today's second reading and congratulate the doctor and her

colleagues in the other place and the baroness for their persistence

in getting us here to this point. This pernicious abuse of women's

rights continues to plague our society. Almost regarded as a

households. It transcends all households. It transcends all

communities, shockingly, so many women seem not to know still that it

is against the law, so in deed an internationally recognised provision

will lend significant armoury to the many women, human rights defenders,

as well as instruct in no uncertain terms still largely male lead

institutions that eradication of violence against women is as

important as providing education, health, housing, and not able to

hide behind the austerity measures and will not be able to make women's

refuge and other services their first collateral. Whilst we should

take pride in the UK in having secured some of the best policies

and practices on domestic violence, including the introduction of new

domestic abuse offences and protection orders and criminalising

forced marriages with which I don't agree, but it appears to be doing

its job. And more vigorous laws on female genital mutilation. We need

to go further in providing protection to those facing violence

and seek to eliminate violence against women. We have tolerated

consecutive generations of violence to plague women's lives, two women

facing death each week. 1.2 million victims, 87,000 rapes reported on

top of 400,000 sexual assaults, God alone knows how many women are still

not able to report. In addition to 11,900 children raped last year. 29%

of all these statistics are from the BA ME communities and despite the

progress of women's Emancipation, our daughters and granddaughters are

still facing a level of barbaric violence in our society and we have

to do everything we can to make sure it does not continue. The UK's role

in shaping the Istanbul convention was significant so I don't

understand five views since passed why we have not chosen to ratify it.

I'm glad to have arrived at this point where government is prepared

to work towards compliance. It is ratification indicating a very

powerful step towards in power -- empowerment of women? As well as

push for a more comprehensive response to addressing violence, it

gives victims and survivors right for access to the necessary

specialist services and ratifying the convention adds another layer of

protection and enables local and international agencies to respond

more comprehensively and offer parliamentarians another aspect of

Why would we not do it without any help with the harmonisation of laws.

Why would we not do it without any hesitation? The points that have

been made about extrajudicial territorial requirements, I think

that many women, I was involved in the dowry enquiry led by Mr Sharma

in the other place last year and a huge amount of British citizens were

complaining either that their marriages were not legally

recognised in this country, and when they were facing violence they had

no recourse to law, or that the laws under which they were married under

one country is not recognised in this country and I think that that

level of harmonisation would, I hope, be an integral part of this.

We do have laws and are continuing -- continuously improving on

implementation. The Istanbul convention can be another layer of

safety. We are a signatory and we now need to show that we are serious

about eradication of violence by signing up to it. I believe that the

ratification we demonstrate, I believe that by ratification we

demonstrate our total commitment to all men and women that violence in

all its forms is not tolerable in our society today. This will be an

integrated approach to not only protect women but laws and mandates

and institutions to provide the necessary services so that women and

girls can live free of fear of violence. Finally I am confident

that our ambition is safe in the hands of our current Prime Minister

and the noble Lord, the Minister, who has done so much to advocate and

advance the previous progress made on this issue. Can the Minister say

what the implication of the Brexit negotiation would be on reporting

requirement or signing up to the ratification? My Lords, I, too,

would like to thank the doctor and the noble Baroness, who I am sure

did not wish to success that Scotland and Northern Ireland are

not an integrated to part of the United Kingdom. The noble and

Leonard Lord, Lord Browne, has rightly reminded us that this is a

people's issue, not just a women's issue. His crown is highly polished

and very bejewelled! I should declare an interest. I was a member

of the board and a chair of the domestic fire and charity refuge.

That was many years ago but I still declare the interest, because that

experience was very vivid. Very recently, within the last few days,

I have agreed to become a member of an advisory group for the

organisation case macro voice for victims. It struck me that this

debate may be wrapped up with the debate for International Women's

Day, which was on the UK's role of promoting gender equality. Because

of the significance of the exercise of the UK's role it would be very

significant if the UK ratified the convention. I should not put it

grammatically in that way. It will be significant when it does. Reports

on violence against women often have a section headed something like,

what is violence against women and girls? Sadly there are very many

women and girls who could testify. This week a survey of laws in the 73

countries found that there are bad laws underpinning a global epidemic

of sexual violence. The aims of the convention, prevention, protection

and prosecution and integrating policies are so sensible as to

hardly need any description. They have only been, I think ten

ratification so far. I joined the board of refuge when I was asked to

come to a house ten years ago and attitudes in the UK have changed but

not as much as one may expect in a generation. They seem to me to have

changed very often among senior people who have to deal with the

issue, to take the police is one example, left so in lower ranks.

Some of us were privileged to hear DC see Louisa Wolf from the West

Midlands talk about coercive control at an all-party group meeting

recently. Her understanding and her description were very impressive

indeed. I say that there haven't been the changes one might expect in

a generation. Though the importance of the issue is so enormous, and yet

there is a lack of belief, a lack of understanding. Can I complement the

noble Baroness on raising the issue or people's attitudes. I declare an

interest in night in the 1970s I was with a group of people as a local

councillor, trying to establish a refuge provision. I was invited from

the council I was unimpressed and to go and speak to senior members at

Chorley Council and the then leader of Chorley Council finished the

meeting by saying he was absolutely appalled that men in Preston behaved

like this, because, of course, they didn't in Chorley. Another

councillor came to speak to me and said her son-in-law has embarrassed

her and her daughter had complained of being a victim and the daughters

father would not believe that a barrister could behave like this. --

her son was a barrister. The wide range of areas this can come from.

Magister mine house, that interruption should be very brief. I

am grateful for that interruption. I was about to say that one often

hears that it does not happen here. The lack of understanding,

understanding that what is happening is a crime, is very sadly shared

among those who experience that crime. My Lords, I am a member of

the joint committee on human rights which, in 2015, undertook an enquiry

to examine progress towards ratification in the noble Baroness

referred to that. Its report told Lordships that the convention would

have a strong, indirect effect on the UK legal system, firstly in that

it could be cited by the UK courts as persuasive authority and secondly

through the role of the European Court of Human Rights, given that

the government is bound by its judgment and, therefore, the terms

of the convention could have a strong, indirect effect on the UK

legal system. The report also commented on some of the evidence

that it had obtained. Witnesses had told the committee that ratification

would help the UK's position internationally in tackling violence

against women and girls and would encourage other countries to follow

suit. The bar human rights committee of England and will said that

ratification would emphasise the state 's positive duty and it would

provide a further basis in law for those who wished to persuade the

state to provide adequate and meaningful resources to construct an

effective mechanism to protect women from gender violence and harm. That,

of course, does raise the question, is that a resource issue behind this

which may not have been acknowledged in the same way as the concerns

about the devolved institutions. I hope that the Minister can assure us

that there is not a devolved resource component to this

precluding ratification. The evidence from the Minister to the

committee referred to the ratification being a matter for the

devolved administrations. Let us not seek to avoid any responsibility

ourselves in that area. The governments response to the report

was to emphasise its commitment to the convention, but again to refer

to the devolved administrations. The International context is something

that we have heard about, and we have also heard that it is not just

a third World issue. Real commitment would put all the mechanisms in

place and it would be a considerable achievement of Her Majesty 's

government, both to be able to ratify the Convention and actually

to ratify it. It would be a solid expression of its commitment to

preventing and combating violence against women and domestic pile in.

If you like, it would put the country's legislation where its

mouth is. -- domestic violence. The UK is in a good position to ratify,

according to the J CHR. The then Home Secretary showed her personal

commitment and only a single legislative change is required. Last

year the JCHR visited Strasbourg and I remember a member of the Council

of Europe emphasising very strongly the importance of the UK 's example.

The context was different, we were talking about compliance with the

judgment of the court and a different issue, but the same

message, and that is the examples set by a country which is respected

and use respect needs to be maintained. From these benches we

support the bill. My Lords, it is a pleasure and privilege to make a

brief response from the opposition front bench. I congratulate my noble

friend for bringing forward this bill and for her excellent opening

speech that made the case so compelling that I challenge the

Minister to resist in any way at all. I would like to take a moment

to congratulate my honourable friend for a lifetime of campaigning for

women and girls throughout political history and to say what an

inspiration she is to so many of us on these benches. It has been a

delight to hear speeches from almost all around the house, particular for

the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who made such an important contribution

to the legal position to the position of women with that

ground-breaking ruling. I also congratulate him to turn up and

stand up and speak up for his benches on the men who support this.

I look forward to the Conservative benches being just as encouraging

when the minister gets up to speak. I am pleased to say from these

benches that I fully support this bill and it has the full support of

the official opposition and the Labour Party had confirmed that in

government we would ratify the Istanbul convention. Violence

against women and girls should be a priority in any society and we are

completely committed to ensure that women and girls can have safe and

secure lives wherever they live and whatever they choose to do. Sarah

Champion said in another place, ending violence against women and

girls requires a radical seismic societal shift in power and

attitudes. This bill may be a small contribution but it is a very

important one and it shows our partnership can -- parliament can

play in tackling that challenge. We had a catalogue of appalling

violence, explained by the Bishop of Saint all buttons and the noble and

learned it Lord of Eaton under Heywood. As my noble friend Lady

Gale, the reason to understand that this violence is perpetrated against

women and girls, it is gendered violence, and it is not an accident

that such a disproportionate amount of it is directed against women and

girls. It is the context in which atoms which is global inequality,

and inequality of power and an inequality of access to the levers

of power. We need to understand that there is a connection between that

even in our own society. We are still in a permission where we have

a female Prime Minister but only other seven other women in their

cabinet and 29% of MPs are women and we recently saw the celebrations

went on, finally won a by-election just before Christmas meant as many

women had been elected to the other place in history as were sitting on

that day. In this house only 26% of us are women and we are making

progress but the reality is that the context here and elsewhere around

the world means that we will have to take particular steps to address the

challenge faced by women and girls and that is the context for this

bill. That makes this convention, the Istanbul convention, so

important. Is a unique grand pacing piece of

legislation which offers an international framework for tackling

violence against women and girls -- unique ground-breaking. So I hope

they will be telling us they will give this bill affaires wind and

that we will hear from them a timetable for ratification of the

convention and that there will be a time and they can change the house

what changes will be needed to ratify it and I look forward to

hearing about this. But also as the bill will cut across powers, I

wonder if the Minister could tell the house what discussions the

government has had with devolved administrations regarding

implementing this? This provides us with a step we need to take a key

move forward in the battle to eliminate violence against women and

girls and I hope the House and the government give this wholehearted

support. My Lords, may I take a moment to thank the noble ladies are

taking this bill through the House and for the very constructive

conversation we have have this week. -- lady. May at -- may I also single

out special praise. It is always nice to hear men come in on a debate

which is mainly about women. I would like to say at this moment that the

government has given its full backing to this bill and we wholly

support its aim of making sure that we deliver on our commitment to

ratifying the Istanbul convention. We all recognise that violence is

still far too prevalent in our society today. And that women still

face much higher risk of gender-based violence than men.

Physical, sexual and domestic abuse affects women are disproportionately

and that is the stark reality, I'm afraid. We'll so know that many of

these crimes remain unreported -- we also know. We spoke about this in

questions yesterday, leaving victims to suffer in silence, and

perpetrators escaping justice. Our commitment to ratifying the Istanbul

convention, not only shows how seriously this government is taking

its responsibility to make sure that all victims are supported and that

perpetrators are brought to justice, but also our ongoing commitment to

strengthening international cooperation in this field which is

vital. My Lords this government has put prevention at the heart of our

approach, and we have significantly strengthened the law since we first

published our first call to end violence in 2010, as the right

reverend the Bishop of St Albans has pointed out. We have criminalised

forced marriages in England and Wales and have a forced marriage

order in protection. The right reverend brought up an interesting

point about the issue of forced marriages and girls being taken out

of the UK for this reason. The joint Home Office and Foreign and

Commonwealth Office, they provide that support and advice to victims.

The most recent statistics were published yesterday in fact and they

showed that in 2016 advice or support was provided in 1428 cases.

371 of those, 26%, involved under 18 's and the unit handled cases

relating to 60... Sorry to break in. I was making a different point. I'm

grateful to have those statistics, but the question is we don't have

any proactive way of trying to work out, for example, people going

through immigration, to find out more information, it is simply an

unknown problem and that is what I was trying to push in. Could you

comment on that. You make a very good point. About how do we actually

as opposed to being reactive about these things, be proactive, and one

of the things that we have made significant steps in doing over the

last new months and years, is over our intelligence at the border,

training border staff to look for what may be issues of either people

trafficking or forced marriages, there are a host of things that

immigration is looking at that actually prevents some of these

things from happening. I'm glad that the right reverend brought that up.

We have fast tracked in addition to that, female genital mutilation

protection orders and we have introduced a new mandatory reporting

duty for FGM. We have strength and legislation on stalking, creating

two new offences and we have improved training regarding stalking

for those who come into contact with victims and we have also introduced

a new stalking protection order with criminal sanctions to help protect

victims at the earliest possible opportunity. The rape action plan

launched in 2014 and led by the Crown Prosecution Service and the

National policing lead for rape is making sure that every report of

rape is treated seriously and every victim is given the help they

deserve. And we have protected funding for rape support services at

current levels in 2016, 2017, providing independent specialist

support. We have also strengthened the law on domestic violence with a

new offence of domestic abuse which covers controlling and coercive

behaviour and another thing we touched upon on Wednesday at

questions, the new offence protects victims who would otherwise be

subjected to sustained patterns of abuse that can lead to total control

of their lives by the perpetrator, some of them not actually even

knowing that this is happening to them. Another thing we discussed.

And the new domestic violence protection order and the domestic

violence disclosure scheme has also been rolled out across England and

Wales. This is alongside the work of the government to continue reforming

front line agency 's response. It is vital that victims have the

confidence to report these crimes knowing they will get the support

they need and that everything will be done to bring offenders to

justice. The UK continues to be a global leader in its efforts to

tackle this and our changes to domestic law are supporting a

stronger international framework, the Istanbul convention highlights

the need for more regional and international cooperation and while

there is no one size fits all model, the measures within the convention

will make sure that more of the action is taken through legally

binding and harmonised standards. In most respects the measures already

in place in the UK to protect women and girls from violence comply or go

further than the Convention requires. But before we ratify the

convention we must make sure that we are fully compliant with it. There

is one outstanding issue regarding introducing extraterritorial

jurisdiction or even extraterrestrials jurisdiction which

needs to be addressed before we will consider it to be compliant. We

already have the TJ over some of the offences -- E TJ over some of the

offences, including forced marriages and FGM, but there is still a number

of offences including rape of an over 18, sexual assault and domestic

violence. We need to fully comply with the requirements in Article 44

of the convention. This will require primary legislation to be introduced

in England and Wales as well as Scotland and Northern Ireland. We

are working closely with ministerial colleagues to progress this issue

and as the Prime Minister has signalled, we will explore all

options to bring the necessary legislation forward. I think it was

the noble lady who asked about the devolved administrations and we are

in regular contact with them on this bill and the Istanbul convention.

The bill places agency on the government to lay a report before

Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after this bill comes

into force. As well as the timescale within which ratification is

expected and it also requires the government to lay the annual report

before Parliament on progress towards ratification. I recognise

that noble Lords want some assurance that we will continue to update

Parliament on the ongoing compliance with the convention,

post-ratification. As with the other Council of Europe treaties and the

baroness did actually asked a question about Brexit, in this

regard, it is a Council of Europe treaty, so this is independent of

the European Union. Functions on processes and it won't affect

Brexit. Once it has been ratified we will be required to submit regular

reports to the Council of Europe on compliance and the reports will

contain detailed information. It will mention the role of civil

society organisations to addressing these crimes and regarding

prosecutions and convictions and we will make sure that both houses have

sight of these reports. The group of experts on action of violence

against women and domestic violence, the independent expert body monitors

the convention, will scrutinise the report and then prepare their own

report with recommendations and the report will also be available for

parliamentary and public scrutiny. The government is pleased to support

this bill and its aims of making sure that we formally demonstrate to

Parliament the progress that we make to deliver against our commitment to

ratify the convention. We have made progress in tackling this but we are

not complacent. We know that there is more to do to make sure that

victims of terrible crimes get the support they need. Across government

strategy published last March, setup the ambition that by the end of this

Parliament no victim of abuse is turned away from the support they

need. The strategy is underpinned by increased funding of ?80 million and

this includes the Home Office's ?15 million, three-year violence against

women and girl fun, to promote and embed the best local practices and

make sure that early intervention and prevention becomes the norm. The

Chancellor's Spring statement has announced an additional ?20 million

for victims of domestic abuse. This funding will help to deliver our

goal to work with local commissioners to deliver a secure

future for rape support centres, refugees and FGM and forced marriage

unit, and driving a major change across all services so that early

intervention and prevention is the norm. Furthermore to make sure that

all victims get the right support at the right time, we have set out a

clear blueprint for local action through the national statement of

expectations and this sets out what local areas need to do to prevent

offending and support victims and it will encourage organisations to work

with local commissioners to disseminate this and support

implementation of best practice. We have also recently announced some

key measures which will further strengthen the response. A major new

programme of work on domestic abuse has been announced by the Prime

Minister. This cross governmental work is being co-ordinated by the

Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary and will look at

legislative and non-legislative options to improve support for

victims. The measures that come out of this will encourage victims to

run >> STUDIO: -- to report their abuses and further raise public

awareness. We have announced that sex education will be put on a

statutory footing so that every child has access to age-appropriate

provision in a consistent way. And the Department for Education will be

consulting on making PS H E statutory. We must continue to

challenge the many forms of discrimination that women still face

and make sure that we make this everyone's business. We all have our

part to play in protecting women and girls from violence and I very much

hope and feel that you noble Lords will join me in supporting this

bill. I would like to thank all noble

members of the House today, I'll get this right. Thank you all very much

indeed for taking part. I would specially like to thank the noble

and learned Lord Brown for his contribution and again to thank him

for all the wonderful work he has done in this field. And to the right

Reverend again for speaking about his experiences listening to women

who have suffered from domestic violence and bringing that to your

Lordship's House. I mention our two male peers who took part because we

need women and men taking part in this. It isn't an issue just for

women as the noble Lord's have pointed out. Again I'd like to thank

the noble Baroness for her support of this and talk about her

experience in this field as well. And for the work on the Joint

Committee on Human Rights and speaking about how that committee

wants to ratify the Istanbul convention. I was interested in my

noble friend's intervention that some people think it doesn't happen

in their area. We know it happens everywhere. It happens in every

county in England, Wales, Scotland and in the whole world actually.

There's no country free from it. That is why it's really important

that we take action. I would like to thank my noble friend again for the

Opposition support for this bill. So there is support right across the

House on hiss. I thank the minister for her support for the bill. I'm

sure working together, with other members, we going to get this

through. I look forward to working with her and I'm sure that in

getting this bill through your Lordship's house that she will make

sure that, working together, should keep my feet firmly on the ground

and that bill does not end up in outer space. I'm really looking

forward to that. I know we're going to get the compliance because the

Government seems to be determined to do that. I thank the minister for

her cooperation and I would now ask the House to gay the bill a second

reading. -- to give the bill a second reading. As man of that

opinion should say content. The contents have it.

My Lord I move that this bill be committed to a committee of the

whole House. As many of that opinion say content. To the contrary not

content. The contents have it. Second reading of the political

parties funding and expenditure bill. My Lord's, I beg to move this

bill be read a second time. I must confess that I'm very surprised,

pleasantly surprised of course, to be in a position to move the second

reading of the bill. Had there not been a fill buster in the other

place two weeks ago, I would have no chance to set out the merits of our

proposal today, and that would have been the last opportunity for this

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

on the cross-party draft published in April 2013 by a small group

comprising Andrew Tyrie MP, very distinguished member of the other

place who's worked so hard on this issue and Alan Whitehead a very well

respected Labour MP and myself. I'm hugely grateful for their time and

their commitment, but the current bill has, for obvious reasons, been

updated since then, so that they cannot be held responsible for all

its details. My Lord's I should also record that the really hard work for

the original draft was undertaken by a professional Parliamentary

draftsperson under the supervision of our principal advisor Alex Davis,

with the support of the GCSE receive Rountree reform -- Joseph Rowntree

trust. The contribution of Alex to the process has been invaluable. The

bill is as much his as it is now. I should record that it seeks to

fulfil the objectives of the report by the committee on standards?

Public life pub -- stands in publish life. I am delighted that the

current chairman, who has down so much to clarify the problems and

possible solutions intends to speak today. The current bill drafted

nearly a year ago now, updates the previous proposals to reflect the

various manifesto commitments of all the main parties to take big money

out of British politics. And to regularise the constraints of both

party donations and campaign expenditure. The delay in obtaining

this debate, my Lord's, has two fortuitous, huge benefits. First,

I'm delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Young, is to respond since he

and I have debated together and often worked together over some 55

years. He may not care to be reminded of this. I hope it's too

late to affect his career, but it has been a very happy cooperation on

several occasions. My Lord's, if this debate had taken place earlier

in the session he might have still been enjoying well earned retirement

on the backbenches. But he's here today and I'm delighted. Mowerover,

my Lord's, unlike so many colleagues, he comes to the

Government dispatch box with a great deal of experience of election

contests, several more than mine and very many more successful than mine.

He is uniquely placed to respond positively to this debate. My

Lord's, secondly, in the last few weeks, there have been several

developments which add to the urgency of a review of the law

relating to political funding, both in relation to the extent to which

millionaires dominate the income of all parties and the way in which,

and the way in which opportunities are found to circumnavigate the long

established restraints of campaign funding. This debate is all the more

timely and topical for that. For example, I immediately concede, my

Lord's, that the bill does not, since it was prepared over a year

ago, adequately cover the special circumstances of referendums or

referenda, if you prefer. You will be aware of the recent revelations

in the Observer newspaper examiner the role of the American billionaire

Robert Mercer and his interests in Cambridge alalityca and vote leave

campaign last year. Despite attempted explanations that this

company, which assisted the Trump campaign to target swing voters at a

cost of more than $6 million, did not work in British politics Mr

Aaron Banks suggests otherwise. He said last month that Cambridge

analytical was "world class, had helped the Leave campaign with

unprecedented levels of engagement and claimed that their artificial

intelligence won it for Leave." One of the employees of this company had

previously appeared at a Leave EU press conference to explain the

technology that was being employed in their campaign. The Observer

reports that Cambridge analytical "declined to comment last week on

whether it had (inaudible) As members here will know all donations

of services in kind worth ?7,500 must be reported to the Electoral

Commission and no such submission was made. Here my Lord's is a clear

case for the commission to be empowered to examine again the issue

of valuable benefits in kind and to act to prevent abuse. I come to a

second example of potential abuse. The guardian on February 24 reported

on the curious case of the referendum campaign expenditure by

the DUP, which was wholly and completely spent on the mainland of

Great Britain. We now know that the DUP had an anonymous donation of

?280,000 for advertising wrap around Metro, by far its biggest single

contribution to the Leave campaign. And Metro does not circulate in

Northern Ireland. The rules on political donations transparency

were not extended to the province in 2000, for very special reasons.

Those reasons may not apply now, and they should surely be revisited. The

practical result of this deefs action has been to create an

apparent case of political money laundering. I hope the ministers and

commission will agree this potential abuse should not be permitted to

continue and increase and the latter must be given powers in legislation

to tackle it. Together, my Lord's, these two examples result in the

Leave campaign standing accused not only of lying in the substance of

their campaign, but cheating in the process of delivering it. My third

example is even more urgent and topical because the trend I will

identify is inSidious and undermines one of the most vital features of

our representative democracy. Since 1883, there have been firm rules to

prevent individuals and organisations from pouring excessive

sums of money into the constituency campaigns to secure the election of

individual candidates, to prevent the purchase of MPs, if you like.

All the elections here contested I'm sure that the noble Lord, Lord

Young, will have been reminded that every single penny spent to secure

his success is restricted by law. It must be observed rigorously and

reported or he could end up in court. A number of other members of

your Lordship's House stood for election to the other place and I'm

sure they were reminded by their agents at regular intervals about

expenditure at any sum to secure election. Over recent years,

however, an ever increasing percentage of the investment in

target seats has come from the various national party campaign

funds with hugely different and higher permitted totals. All parties

have seen this as an obvious way to increase their chances of success in

those constituencies, while dodging the long established local financial

constraints. My Lord, in recent weeks, we've all been endeaded to

Michael Crick and Channel 4 for their determined investigative

journalism on this issue. Personally I regret that the BBC has appeared

to be prepared to leave it to rivals, to their rivals, to fill

this important role. However, the Times has covered this issue

extensively. In its issue of March 4, under the headline, "election

fraud Queenery rocks Number Ten", and then there was a considerable

interest that followed on from that. World media attention has fizzed

round these cases, the official response has been positively

pedestrian. My Lord's, outrageously, these matters have been allowed to

drag on for more than 20 months. Quite apart from anything else, this

has been hanging over heads of individual MPs, and a number of

them, whose whole political career could be at risk. It is surely

absurd for so many individual police forces, many of whom may never have

undertaken any similar investigation to have to learn afresh the way in

which campaign funding is restricted by law. So that is why clause 23 of

our bill makes provision for the Electoral Commission to be empowered

in this key role of ensuring compliance with all the expenditure

limits in election law. Meanwhile, clause 19 of our bill sets out

clearly a way to circumscribe a growing abuse of our electoral

legislation. Subsection three of that clause, the only part of the

bill I intend to quote directly this afternoon, it reads, "No more than

1% of the amounts specified in subsection two may be incurred by

represented registered party for the purposes of A, sending unsolicited

material, falling within paragraph four of sedge you'll one -- schedule

one, addressed to any person registered or entitled to be

registered in the register of Parliamentary electors for any

Parliamentary constituency, B, making unsolicited telephone calls

to such persons. To be clear, this means that only 1% of the overall

national preparer limit could be spent in any one constituency on the

two campaign methods which are denone strabl targeted. A letter or

telephone call to an elector in a home, in a constituency cannot be

said to be doing other than influencing the result in that

particular constituency. It's one of the features of our electoral system

that there is no national result, nor a regional result, only

constituency results. What we are suggesting may not prevent all the

present cunning attempts to bypass the law, not least with the Advent

of targeted social media advertising, but it would be a good

start. And if the Government took on this cross-party bill, they could

certainly make it more comprehensive, for example, dealing

with the deployment of central party staff and the bus loads of activists

to marginal seats. I don't know whether the noble Lord reads the

Daily Mail every morning, but I'm sure his department has drawn his

attention to page two of that newspaper this morning, possibly

also he saw Channel 4 last night, that is very relevant. I'm very

competent and well aware of the recent extensive, excellently

prepared and fair recommendations of the Electoral Commission that their

expert advice to be available to ministers. I have a summary of

relevant recent Electoral Commission statements which I won't propose to

read out now, but I'm sure the noble Lord the minister is well aware of

them. The Times article was accompanied by

a leading article which concluded the spending rules exist for good

reasons. They make sure that constituency candidates face each

other on a level playing field, fiddling expenses undermines not

just the result, but the public's face in the institutions of

Parliament. Above all the electoral process must be seen to be honest

and above reproach. I wholeheartedly agree and I hope that the noble Lord

will do so, to. My Lords, I readily acknowledge that the likelihood of

any further progress for our cross-party bill at this time is

precisely zero. However, help is at hand. Members of the house will

recall the crucial recommendations regarding trade union political

funds and political party funding. I'm proud to admit that I originally

suggested the creation of that select committee and then served on

it. Our report published just over a year ago referred to the

Conservative 2015 election manifesto as follows, to seek agreement on a

comprehensive package of party funded reform. And then our report

included one very important recommendation, approved

unanimously. Whether or not clause ten is enacted in whatever form, the

political parties should live up to their manifesto commitments and make

a renewed and urgent effort to seek a comprehensive agreement on party

funding reform, and it went on, we urge the government to take a

decisive lead and convened talks itself rather than waiting for them

to emerge. We accepted the select committee's report and the trade

union Bill was amended, but we waited in vain for the government's

response to this crucial recommendation. At long last before

Christmas, Christmas Eve, I think, six months beyond the convention

limit, Chris Skidmore Parliamentary undersecretary wrote to our

committee chairman, in his memorandum setting up the

government's response largely ignored this recommendation and

failed completely to reiterate the 2015 Conservative manifesto, but

instead stated boldly that this -- despite this cross-party consensus,

there is no broad consensus at this time. I'm not sure how he has

arrived at this view, because in advance of convening talks. I

suspect it might be that the Conservatives just don't want to

find a consensus. However, he went on to promise, the government is

open to constructive debate and dialogue on small-scale measures

which could command broad support, if there was a positive reaction to

such a potential step from a main political party, but let me repeat.

A positive reaction. I don't know Chris Skidmore, but I'm sure that

Lord Young will concur with me that the team in the cabinet off is

always chooses their words with extreme care. It is impossible to

have a reaction, positive or otherwise, without having an action

to react to. There must be something to react to. Therefore I'd take it

that the government is now ready to follow the recommendation of the

select committee and to put some proposals to a cross-party group

which they will convene. To meet the recommendation of the select

committee, so warmly endorsed by your membership's house committee

may be that the Minister will outline these proposals this

afternoon. I've always been told that the afternoon is when the Mace

hits the wharf site, that the afternoon starts.

In any case, in this House and those from across the House, who agreed

unanimously to these recommendations, several of whom I'm

delighted to see here today, will now look to the government to

initiate these talks immediately with a view to taking this further

in the Queen's Speech and the new session. The Prime Minister came to

office last year without the trouble of an election, and she must now

pledged to lead a government which would be driven not by the interests

of the privileged few. While donations and expenditure to

election campaigns remains on reform, she simply cannot realise

this ambition. A privileged few will continue to have privileged access

to government and power. So before we get too close to another general

election it is time, finally, to grasp this nettle. We who have

worked on this cross-party bill, offer it as a practical starting

point for cross-party discussions and for the legislation that must

surely follow. I beg to move. The question is that this bill now be

read a second time. I congratulate Lord Tyler in bringing forward this

bill. I congratulate him especially... He spoke of the need

to control big-money donations and I note in the week that his party

leader has been extolling about $1 million >> STUDIO: -- about ?1

million donation, exceeding that of the Labour Party. Anyone will not be

surprised it is possible for the Liberal party leadership to be

exalted in ?1 million donation at one end of Parliament while here

they are being attacked. But despite all that, I complement the noble

Lord Agassi is always very assiduous on these matters -- because he is

always. A number of other matters deserve careful consideration, and

there is a good case for gift aid and relation to personal political

donations, especially at the local level, where political service in

local communities actually at -- is objectively not much different from

voluntary service for the public good. I must restrain myself because

the cynic in me that sadly gnaws its way through my customary civility to

the Liberal Democrats, does tempt me to say that some might see part one

of schedule two in this bill which is entitled limits on campaign

expenditure, and the noble Lord's own condemnation as he put it of

bus-loads of activists being taken to elections. As perhaps a little

rich in a bill which is being commended by the party opposite. But

this being lent, I will restrain myself and I think we should all

reflect on verse seven of chapter eight, I say this as the right

reverend's benches empty, but chapters St John, let the party

without sin cast the first stone. But the noble Lord referred to

things which are not in the bill and I want to refer to things which I

think are important. These are, the reception of donations that are

later found to be the direct proceeds of crime, and secondly the

risk of corrupt attempts to induce political party not to put up a

candidate in an election. On the first point I'd take as my test case

in the case of Michael Brown, convicted in 2008 hurt theft,

furnishing false information and seeking to convert the course of

justice -- for therefore the later broke jail as a fugitive from

justice, but he donated ?2.4 million in just seven weeks to the Liberal

Democrats in 2005. Before anyone says I have got on John, chapter

seven, I would say that the Maxwell case and others show that all

parties have encountered this problem. Let the party without sin

cast the first stone. But I'd take the Brown, three wrongs do not make

a right, and I focus on the ground case because it took place after the

establishment of the electoral commission. And it clearly shows the

inability of the commission to secure the return of donations which

are the result of criminal enterprise, impermissible donation

might be returned. If it was later found to be from the proceeds of

crime. The only issue in law that the electoral commission campus you

is whether the donation appeared reasonably to be their personal at

the time it was given. -- to be permissible. And broadly that is

whether it was incorporated in the UK and trading, and that is

something that told in the very entertaining memoirs of the noble

Lord, and always proud to plug the work of a former Richmond

councillor, he says the Metropolitan special police special Branch told

the Liberal Democrats at the time that fifth Ave partners were trading

legitimately. It is therefore a material that it was later proved in

court that the donating company was operating as a front for massive

fraud. Paragraph 37 of the electoral commission's later report on this

case implies that three donations to the Liberal Democrats, one of

100,000, one of 151,000, and a third one of ?632,000, were money put into

the company by default it would be investors which was flipped by Brown

into political donations. Although the courts found that brown faced at

least ?36 million from people who thought they were investing in a

successful hedge fund, run by the son of a peer, and I never

understand why people find it so beguiling when they are approached

by someone who claims to be the son of a peer that they hand over their

money. One individual hand it over ?8 million, very unfortunate, whose

name is well known. But no action could be taken to recover the funds

that were later found to be the proceeds of this criminal

enterprise. One of Michael Brown's victims took the case to the

Parliamentary ombudsman and he actually found against the electoral

commission on certain grounds, negligence as he saw it,

commissioned it not acceptable, those findings, and the matter was

effectively closed. The party kept the money, as the Maxwell minute in

the past was kept, and the victims lived with the loss -- the Maxwell

money. There is a clear inequity, and I diverges between the treatment

of what is found, albeit in good faith -- and a diverges. To be an

impermissible donation at the time and one which is found later to come

from criminal fraud. And I think if this bill goes forward to committee

this issue really should be addressed. The second matter I wish

to raise relates to the very murky affair of a ?250,000 donation

offered by a still anonymous individual or company to the Green

Party. In the context of discussion whether or not the Green Party

should put up a candidate in the Richmond Park by-election and give a

free run to the Liberal Democrats. Now, that this attempt at a donation

was made is not tonight, my lords, quite the reverse. -- is not denied.

Report from Kingston Green Party declares, and I quote, party staff

added pressure to Kingston Green Party activists, saying in

confidence that the party staff working for us to agree to stand

down. This was because they would be serious but confidential

implications for the National party, so serious that they could even

affect the jobs of party staff. In the event that we did not do so. I

continued the quote, later it was clarified by party staff, ostensibly

on the instructions of a chief executive, that this related to the

donation of some ?250,000 that was conditional on the party showing its

seriousness about the progressive Alliance initiative. Between Green

Party and the Liberal Democrats. The evidence of those... INAUDIBLE

... A quarter of ?1 million, on offer, for the Green Party to not

oppose the Liberal Democrats, either here or more widely. And this was

not denied by the Green Party. Indeed it has been reported first

that the central staff member did discuss the proposed donation with

local party members, but this was an error. That is the usual excuse, my

lords, of overzealous officials that comes up in so many cover-ups.

The Green Party has said that the donation was considered but rejected

by the party's ethics committee. That's a committee that we're told

ensures no donations are accepted from foreign sources, tobacco

companies or other industries, such as aviation. In other words, my

Lord's, the offer was made, it was considered by the Green Party, it

was used in argument within the Green Party to seek to induce people

not to come forward or wish to come forward to be candidates, but was

eventually rejected. Now it's true that the Green Party has denied that

this attempted donation was contingent on this one specific seat

being vacated for the Liberal Democrats. But that does not rule

out its being part of an inducement to a wider, progressive alliance in

which the two parties involved would agree not to contest a number of

agreed seats. E-mails are available in which the liberal leader of

Kingston, liberal party on Kingston Council, Liz Green, is seeking to

reach such arrangements with local Greens. It's note worthy that

Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, facing boundary changes, showed an uncommon

interest in this matter, my Lord's. I asked the Electoral Commission if

they were minded to investigate this attempted donation. They said that,

I quote, "corrupt withdrawal from candidacy was a matter not for them

but for the police." It was their understanding the matter might have

been reported to the police, but a police spokesman, whom I cordially

thank and who was perhaps unable to establish the position in the time

available said after the inquiries he made that he was unaware of such

an investigation. My Lord's, I think there should be an investigation and

if no-one else has done so, then I would consider writing to the

Metropolitan Police commissioner myself. Section 107 of the

representation of the people act reads as follows: Corrupt withdrawal

from candidature, "any person who corruptly induces or procures any

other person to withdrawal from being a candidate at an election in

consideration of any payment or promise of payment, promise of

payment, my Lord's, and any person with drawing in pursuance of the

producement or procurement shall be guilty of an illegal payment. What

is not clear to me from this is if an inducement to a party not to put

forward, to a party not to put forward a candidate, which can

result, as in this case, in subsequent pressure on act vifrts

not to stand, is equally a criminal offence under the act. Of course, in

the circumstances in which parties have absolute control of the party

badge, rightly so, at elections, if the party does not lend support,

no-one who is a Green can stand as a Green using the greern name. Now it

should be, in my judgment, a criminal offence to seek to induce a

party not to put up a candidate by the offer of money. A police

investigation in think case could readily establish the identity of

the persons involved, including the would-be offerer of the donation.

Something on which the Green Party should come clean. I challenge them

to do so, my Lord's. What possible reason can there be for a political

party hiding the identity of a would-be donor, to which they have

admitted that they themselves is now unethical. They could at stroke

could release that information and we might then be better able to

establish the real truth behind this murky affair. My Lord's, I submit

that section 107 doesn't cover inducements to parties not to permit

candidates to go forward in certain seats, it should be revised to do

so. I hope some of the other matters raised in this bill will be

proceeded with. But I do hope that the two issues I've highlighted

today will also be considered. My Lord's, I rise to thank Lord

Tyler for raising this bill and declare that I the mareman of the

committee on a report in public life. This has a certain family

resemblance to the themes of this bill, public funding, 10,000

donation cap, in particular. Again, as I have done before in this House,

I have to concede that the report of the committee in 2011 from the very

beginning did not claim the support of either the Conservative or Labour

Party membership of the committee. This does not mean I think that we

can then just shelf the report. I certainly think that in one respect

in particular the emphasis in that report on the difficulties

surrounding the big donor culture in British politics and the moral

difficulties are still very much alive. It does mean that I am not

here to fetishise any detail of that report. I does mean that I want to

defend one of the key ideas, the need for cross-party consensus and

I'm here to defend and move this issue forward. I am absolutely

certain the issue cannot be left where it now is. I think, as I want

to make clear in the course of speech, in a number of important

respects, the whole landscape has changed in the last five, six years

in respect to these issues. Any reform would have to take into

account the ways in which the landscape has actually changed. I am

grateful to the elements in the speech where he indicated there were

certain elements of perform that he as a Conservative peer would

support. I think that could be easily enough the beginning of a

discussion between the parties in which there could be a consensus.

There is enormous difficulty around this issue but I do want to start by

supporting one point from Lord Tyler's speech, that is this: The

Prime Minister very effectively, at the beginning of her tenure, as she

took office, talked about the issue of public trust. She raised this

issue, actually, I'm not now talking about general polling about the

Conservative Party's fortunes, which everybody knows of. The Conservative

side is quite solid. We've had an historic by-election result, but

actually on the trust issue. There was a spike, a sympathetic spike

upward in public trust issues in the immediate period of the Prime

Minister taking office, upwards, because she talked about trust in

politics and she talked about these issues and implied there would be

change. I am absolutely certain and I know I say to a Government riding

on a crest of a wave of highs opinion polls, the massive

distraction of Brexit for Governmental energy. It cannot be

left where it is. It cannot be left where expectation is raised that

there is going to be some movement in this area and then absolutely

nothing happens. There was this positive reaction and it would be

very unpleasant for all of us to see this to turn sour in public opinion.

Now the matter is very difficult. To put it simply, 80% of the public

believe that people only give money to political parties because they

want to become peers. 80% of the public believe they will not

contribute to the upkeep of political problems. There you have a

problem. Even more than the committee post on standards in

public life posted last year and this was the work of Dee Goddard,

from the University of Kent, whose work I will draw on later in the

speech as well, you can see, for example, 90% of members of the

public believe that MPs behave in hay way, which is determined in some

degree, by party donors, possibly against their conscience. As a

matter of fact, I do not believe this to be true at all. I believe

the level of trustworthiness, real trustworthiness of a member of

Parliament is far higher than some of these jaundiced surveys of trust.

But nonetheless, the fact that level of suspicion exists cannot be

totally disregarded. There's no magic way forward. Similar polling

shows that 42% of the public are not sure they believe in a donation cap.

That's quite a large chunk. They certainly are not sure as to what

the level of that donation cap should be to political parties. So I

am not denying for one minute that it will be easy to resolve these

issues. I am not convinced that an all-singing, all-dancing reform

would prove to be possible. I am convinced, and I think we have seen

some of the elements of Lord Tyler's bill, and in Lord True's speeches,

elements where the parties could come together and at least be seen

to be responding to public concern on these matters. It is not good

enough for the Conservative Party, all the parties actually, to have

commitments in their 2010/2015 election manifestos which are widely

disregarded. I should say in the name of fairness here, that while

there's a pile of dusty and non-committal letters, in the

committee of standards office, where weaver asked the leaders of all the

parties what are they going to do on this matter and how will they live

up to the language in their manifestos, there is also a dusty

letter from the Deputy Prime Minister of the last Government,

also not really moving the situation forward in any very dramatic way.

All three major parties have not really distinguished themselves in

their, in their enthusiasm for reform in this particular area. I

want to mention a couple of difficulties in Lord Tyler's bill,

one of which he's acknowledged and addressed it somewhat in his speech.

It doesn't deal with matters in referenda. I think he's right and I

think there's a key issue of, he's right in what he said in his speech,

there is a key issue of private companies and their declaration of

ultimate ownership, when they donate to political parties. This is now a

key issue. I think it is likely to surface when the Electoral

Commission carries out its projected analysis now of the funding of the

referendum campaign. I think that is a gap. The second points that I want

to address is the issue of third-party funding. Now here, Lord

Tyler's bill slightly steps away from it. To be honest, our own

committee report 2011, if I remember rightly, was criticised by the

brilliant Oxford political scientist for its neglect of the third party

funding issue. We simply said it was an issue and we wanted the electoral

comiction to deal with it, but did not vote any real space or analysis

in our report. I can understand why there was criticism of that neglect

or deficiency. Since then, we have had the report of Lord Hodgson, the

independent report on third-party funding. This is important and it

came out in March 2016. It hits on something which is very important

and reinforces my earlier point, the way in which the actual terrain of

party political campaigning is changing so rapidly in this country

so that reforms, such as ours, were essentially designed to deal with

certain realities of payments for leafletting, the way that parties

operated locally, the way that activists behaved locally, which in

some ways had not changed all that much since the 1850s. In the last

five years, a new world has actually been created. Lord Hodgson's report

had the great merit of modernising our thinking on this key subject. In

particular, the ambiguous way in which social media transforms the

traditional forms of cam ache and -- campaigning. The parties are showing

increasing skill in exploitation of social media platforms for targeted

advertising using big data and the ability to data mine remains

difficult, it's very expensive, expensive procedures and it is which

therefore also heightens the significance of the use of private

money in our politics. There is a strong sense in the last election,

perfectly legitimately, the Conservative Party was well ahead of

the game in this respect, certainly as expenditure was well ahead of the

game, as against that of the Labour Party. Now that's politics. You're

either awake or you're not. I make no protest on that particularly

point, but nonetheless, it is something that you have to with

thought about and Lord Hodgson, for example, makes a point very strongly

in his report that many of these processes involved are likely to

take place before actually the regulated campaign begins. So these

are things we must at least take account of. We are not carrying out

political campaigns in the way we used to. Any reform should try and

address this. It's in some ways, as so often with the liberating, in

some ways liberating and in other respects ambiguous and potentially

disturbing in the way the new procedures might be put. Finally, my

Lord's, I want to distress my strong support for the key theme of the

bill before us today and that is the need for reform of the situation in

Northern Ireland. Obviously, I have a personal interest as I'm from

Northern Ireland, but actually my committee has had this interest long

before. The committee has been addressing this subject since 2009.

It is no longer acceptable to have secrecy as to party donations in

Northern Ireland. There may yet be a need for some transitional phase,

but nonetheless, the fact that we have had this secrecy is, in fact, a

part of the crisis which now grips Northern Irish politics. It's a

small part, but not insignificant. Because the point is this: That the

public believes that those who benefitted from the renewable

heating scandal and the waste -- alleged waste of hundreds of

millions of pounds of public money are, in many cases, party donors.

Now this may not be true, my neighbours all believe it to be

true. It may be entirely unfair. But what is a complicated and poisonous

factor in the recent election, there's no doubt in my mind it was a

complicated factor. May I make this point, my Lord's, we often wonder in

this country about transparency. It is perfectly true to say as I look

through The Minutes, before my time, that back over 20 years, that there

is an illusion on behalf of my very distinguished predecessors about

transparency. They actually believed for sure if only we achieved more

transparency in this or that area of British public life there would be

an increase in public trustment -- trust. In many respects this has not

happened. That is an illusion. But it is also the case and it is very

clear from the recent scandal in Northern Ireland, that the absence

of transparency makes things worse, so transparency is not the cure-all.

So I want to make that point and perhaps also in fairness Lord Tyler

mentioned the issue of the Democratic Unionist Party. Good I

explain this business of funding. It was an option for the Conservative

Party, this idea that money would go to Northern Ireland. There is no

suggestion that the Conservative Party Northern Ireland has ever used

that route which technically could have done, and indeed the Labour

Party which while it doesn't stand candidates in Northern Ireland has

members who are allowed to vote for the Labour leadership for example.

There has never been a suggestion and I'm confident it hasn't happened

that either of the main parties could have exploited the route that

is now complained about in the press have actually done so. By the way

another indication of the point I'm trying to make that often levels of

trustworthiness are actually higher than the public believes it to be.

In mainstream British politics. Because technically anyone who sees

this can say, how could this be legal? Once you have donations to a

political party, how is it, it will make it very uncomfortable, but

where is the illegality involved because we have already got secrecy

of donations in Northern Ireland. What is the illegality involved.

Written about critically in the press. I dead quite see the

illegality. Just to complete this point, it is not just the DUP Houari

problem here because current Northern Ireland electoral law

favours Sin Fein also, in that we do not accept foreign donations for

political parties and because we are linked in to the capacious

definition that the Irish Gutman has as to what is to be an Irish