European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Lord Swinfen Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, these regulations are designed to avoid a situation, if possible, that has not arisen before, is most unlikely to occur in future, but which may happen anyway, irrespective of the passing of these regulations. If the Minister knows anything more specific about any political party which may have difficulties of vacancies occurring among its MEPs—including, perhaps, the Conservative Party in Scotland—perhaps he might enlighten us on why it is so necessary to introduce these regulations.

Since the introduction of proportional representation with the closed party list system in 1999, there have been 12 vacancies among our MEPs arising out of a death or resignation. Most of them have been as a result of an MEP being elected as an MP, or appointed as a Peer. All those vacancies for MEPs—five from the Conservatives, four from Labour, and one each from the Lib Dems, the Greens and UKIP, have been filled by someone from the relevant list of party candidates from the previous European parliamentary elections. I was the first person from any party to confirm the filling of a vacancy in this way. As the Liberal Democrats’ nominating officer at the time, I confirmed that my now noble friend Lady Bowles would become an MEP in 2005 when a vacancy occurred because she was next on my party’s list from the 2004 European Parliament elections. Because of arrangements such as this, there have not been any by-elections for MEPs in the past 19 years.

Some of us still hope that the UK will elect MEPs in 2019. As the Minister said, existing law provides that there would not be a by-election if a vacancy were to occur and a party could not fill it from its list in the six months before European elections were due. So the window in which we are anticipating the possibility of a vacancy and the potential problem of it not being possible to fill it from the existing lists of candidates is between the passage of these regulations into law and some time around December of this year—a very short window. It seems surprising to me, therefore, that they have been considered necessary.

On the longer-term issues, reference is made in the Explanatory Notes to work by the Law Commissions highlighting the need to modernise and codify the entire provisions of our electoral laws. Does the Minister accept the case for doing so, and do the Government intend making progress on this?

Will the Minister also agree in particular that these regulations should be reversed in the event that Britain does not leave, or rejoins, the European Union? Normal democratic provisions should allow voters to choose their representative in a by-election in the event that nobody on a party’s list accepts the position. The solution proposed to an unlikely problem may be acceptable in the short term, but such expediency, in which more power is handed to political parties rather than to voters, would not be acceptable in the long run, and it should not be extended or repeated wherever list systems are used.

In the meantime, political parties will of course still have the power to ensure that a European Parliament by-election occurs following a vacancy if nobody on their list is willing or able to accept the position and it refuses to submit a nomination for a substitute. So if the intention of the regulations is to prevent any by-elections for MEPs, they may still not succeed. This is considered in the Explanatory Notes to be extremely unlikely, but it is a tactic that could be employed by a party to force a by-election—or it may be that a vacancy occurs in an MEP’s seat held by a party that during the relevant period is no longer registered with the Electoral Commission. For example, I understand that Ladbrokes today is offering odds of 5-1 that UKIP will not be registered as a political party by the end of the year. Is this perhaps a factor in the Government’s thinking on these regulations?

[Lord Swinfen (Con)]

My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can help me. I think that I heard him say that the cost of a by-election in Wales is £7 million but that it is very much greater elsewhere—I have a feeling that he gave a figure of either £12 million or £20 million. I do not understand why there is this difference. Can we not learn something from Wales, so that costs can be brought down elsewhere?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we should be told about that one for sure.

The Minister is having an exciting time. On Thursday, he welcomed the President of France to this country on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen. Today he is bringing forward perhaps the only coherent piece of European legislation we can expect from this Government over a long period. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, I remain to be convinced that it is entirely necessary.

As the Minister explained, under the regulations, when an MEP vacancy arises and it is not possible to fill it within the existing procedure, the party that holds the seat may instead nominate a person to be an MEP, so that a by-election is not required. I can see that, on the face of it, that seems a sensible provision, since a by-election in the short period between now and 2019 might be regarded as a pointless exercise. However, some points need to be made here.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Lord Swinfen Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Swinfen (Con)]

My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. A local village pub gives the opportunity for people to go out for a drink, and possibly a meal, and to walk home rather than having to drive. If you go out for a meal and cannot or should not drink because you have to drive home, it can wreck the evening for at least one member of the party. If you walk home then even if someone has had a little too much, they can be helped quite easily. The local pub is a very useful institution. In the 40 years that I have been in my village, three pubs have closed down and we are now left with two. One provides some form of entertainment at least once if not twice a week throughout the year and the other, as well as being a pub, has a very good restaurant and rooms for people to stay in—so they serve different communities. The village had five pubs in the past because it is on the main route for pilgrims coming from the continent to Canterbury Cathedral. Nowadays, they come in on coaches from Dover and do not use their legs, which perhaps might atrophy in due course. For these reasons, I support this amendment.

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but I do so in support of the amendment, mainly because I am very fond of pubs. I am a great pub user and always have been—paying great tribute to Adnams bitter in Suffolk is, I think, in order.

Perhaps it is necessary for us to appreciate just how important the pub is in village life. The local post office is too, but we are talking about pubs. In modern terms, you either get that or you do not, but it is absolutely crucial. In my village of Mellis in Suffolk, we have a pub called the Railway Tavern. Many years ago it broke away from the brewery. That was a problem because it had to buy all its alcohol from it, which affected its profitability. That did not work and it was boarded up for a while. It was then bought, but that landlord did not make it work and it was boarded up again. Then the village got together and, with the present landlord, ran it for two to four weeks to get it going—such was the village feeling about the pub. It is now going well and Frank, the present landlord, does an extremely good job. The pub does everything: it has wi-fi, fish and chips regularly on a Friday night and quizzes. It really is the heart of the village.

Noble Lords have referred to the number of village pubs there used to be. We could all talk about our towns and villages that used to have 20 pubs and now have only one. We have reached the stage where this is very serious. Those who feel strongly about the role of the pub in towns and villages—about how crucial they are to village life—must stand up for them. If this amendment will do anything to make it a little more difficult to transform a pub quickly and commercially into something else, I am all for it. I therefore very much support the amendment.

Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]

Lord Swinfen Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2015 Lords Chamber

This is an excellent method by which the Government’s aims can be achieved and the House and Parliament can be assured that the green objectives of the bank will continue to be fulfilled in the very successful way that the team at the Green Investment Bank has done over the last three years.

[Lord Swinfen (Con)]

My Lords, the idea behind the amendment is estimable but purely to do with the environment. The Bank of England is purely to do with finance and I do not think that the two would make happy bedfellows. We should be able to find a better home for the Green Investment Bank than the Bank of England.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister is faced with a rather challenging task here. First, he operates against a background where the Government’s record in recent months has caused great anxiety among all those concerned with improving the environment and reducing the threats of climate change. Here he faces a fairly significant issue—the Green Investment Bank. Of course, the additional complexity is that the bank is itself subject to other legislation under consideration. Irrespective of the merits of the amendment, I could understand if the Minister felt that this were really quite a challenging situation. I will try to find a way out for him as well, as the Liberal Democrat noble Lords emphasised their solutions.

We are not averse to privatising the bank but we are not very appreciative of the urgency of doing it at this time. Crucially, the question that emerged during the debates on the Enterprise Bill and have been identified again today is how the Government intend to maintain the bank’s mission. Of course, it is easy to privatise if one disregards the fundamental objectives of the foundation of the bank. We need to know how the Government intend to guarantee that the bank does not morph in private hands into a different sort of institution and bank. What is the Government’s answer to that? They may not be totally enamoured of the Royal Mail example. Of course, that is buttressed by regulatory standards that we have not so far seen adduced as far as the green bank is concerned.

It is obvious that the Minister must make some progress on this, otherwise the proposal the Government are putting forward elsewhere will occasion increased opposition from this side of the House. I am always in favour of helping Ministers, particularly when it involves them rather than the Opposition doing the work. I suggest that the Minister consults his colleagues in the business department concerned with the process on the green bank and, after those consultations, comes back on Report with a much clearer identification of the progress of the Government’s thoughts on the bank. At present, in the debates on either the Enterprise Bill or this one we have certainly not yet heard anything remotely convincing from the Government to give the assurances we need that if this bank, which has proven to be a successful initiative and is respected for its work, goes into the private sector it will not all too readily be led down paths that depart from its much-valued objectives.

Recall of MPs Bill

Lord Swinfen Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a remarkable fact that in the course of debate on the Bill not a single former Member of the other place has said a word in its support. That might be because some of us spent too long down there; it might purely be that we are prejudiced against Mr Nick Clegg, whose name appears as the main promoter of the Bill; or it might just be, as I hope the Minister will accept, that years of experience down the Corridor make us scrutinise proposals such as this, to try to put our fingers on fundamental weaknesses.

Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I represented a borough constituency. I am speaking from memory, but I think that there were nine or 10 different places for people to vote in that constituency, and even then, there were complaints from some parts of West Bromwich, during the time I had the honour to represent part of that town, that getting to the polling station was a problem. We are to have a maximum of four places to sign a petition under the proposals in the Bill, and a minimum of four if my noble friends’ very sensible amendment is accepted. How would the Minister define a suitable place for this petition? I am aware that the memorandum says that this is a matter for the petitioning officer, but as my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, have said, there are not always convenient local government offices where these petitions can be signed. Would licensed premises, for example, be regarded as suitable places? After all, some local authority buildings are licensed for the sale of alcohol. Would that disqualify that building, in the Minister’s view?

Let us not stop at local authority premises. There are a number of working men’s clubs in the constituency that I represented. Would they be regarded as suitable premises under the terms of the Bill? What about political clubs? The last Conservative club in West Bromwich fell by the wayside some years ago—there were probably not enough patrons—but when it was open, would that have been regarded as a suitable place for a petition? Are politically affiliated clubs specifically disqualified under the terms of the Bill? I cannot find any mention of that in the memorandum, if it is the case, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view. After all, if a Conservative club, for example, were regarded as a suitable place, it might be possible to advertise the sophisticated humour of Mr Jim Davidson—“Come along and listen to Jim Davidson and sign a petition to get rid of your local Labour MP while you are there”. There are endless possibilities regarding the premises to be used.

What about staffing, of which mention has been made? Look at the likely procedures for signing a petition. We are all aware that when one goes to a polling station, one’s name is ticked off and one is given a ballot paper. In the privacy and secrecy of a polling booth, one puts a cross against the candidate of one’s choice. What happens regarding a petition? How is it laid out? Is it at the reception desk when one goes in? Is it possible to see who else has signed it? I ask that question because, like other noble friends, I am concerned about the number of staff who may be needed—first, to check the address and so on in order to establish that that person who is anxious to sign the petition is bona fide. Then, depending on the procedures, do we need other staff to ensure that the person signs only once? Over the years, we have all become familiar with petitions with false names that have received lots of publicity. Is it not possible, if there were only one member of staff there, for a would-be signatory to sign more than once? These are all valid questions in relation to the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at it.

I started by saying that I had not heard any former Member of the other House speak in favour of the Bill. Indeed, the only person I have heard speak in favour of it is the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, who is in his place. As far as I am aware, he has never been elected to anything himself, although I understand that he tried to stand on behalf of the SDP many years ago. He writes an entertaining column in the Times; perhaps he will devote some of his future articles to pointing out—although I appreciate that he supports the Bill—some of the problems that those of us who have been involved in electoral processes over the years can see arising from the way in which it has been drafted.

I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will take these concerns seriously and carefully consider accepting the amendment.

[Lord Swinfen (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, mentioned that in her erstwhile constituency some people might have to take two buses to get to the polling station. In many rural areas and hamlets there is often only one bus out and one back. In some places, there are only a couple of buses a week in each direction. I am therefore a strong supporter of the amendment.

[Lord Tyler]

In my village there is one bus every week—in the wrong direction.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Lord Swinfen Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we return again to what my colleague has just described as a Bill with a long title but a very short content. The amendment stands in the names of my noble friend Lady Royall and me. Last week, an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Rooker, called for the requirement under the Bill to publish meetings with lobbyists to be extended from Ministers of the Crown to the leader of the Opposition in the six months before an election. This is an interesting proposition, as it raises the question of those slightly outside the magic circle of Ministers and Permanent Secretaries, the lobbying of whom should be disclosed to the public.

However, the other side of that coin is the question of whether there are paid lobbyists—paid by industries to promote their interests—who have the ear of government in a particularly close way, but who would not be caught by the register rules, as they are not civil servants and they protest that when they do meet, for example, the Prime Minister, they are speaking not on behalf of those clients who pay them but about very different matters, such as how to beat the Labour Party, or, indeed—the Liberal Democrats should be warned—how to beat the Liberal Democrats. We therefore find that, for the strangest of reasons, meetings that the Prime Minister has with a very well paid lobbyist are not recorded, because, as it so happens, they are only to pore over opinion polls.

Furthermore, despite the Prime Minister’s promise to lead,

“the most transparent government ever”,

we understand that No. 10 has failed to reveal the identity of guests entertained at Chequers. We do not know whether these are lobbyists, mere donors to the party or ordinary friends. But what we do know is that Downing Street has traditionally published an annual list of guests at Chequers, but has not done so since July 2011.

In the context of this Bill, we would be interested to know how many times the lobbyist Lynton Crosby has been at Chequers. What sounds odd is that even after the Bill becomes law, Mr Crosby’s lobbying consultancy would have to disclose any such visits—and therefore publish more than the Prime Minister would have to about such conversations—because Mr Crosby would be defined by the Prime Minister just as a strategic political adviser. But how easy is it to make such distinctions, with the Bill as it stands?

Mr Crosby was hired in November 2012. That month his lobbying firm signed a contract with Philip Morris. In December, he allegedly chaired a meeting at which he advised tobacco companies about plain packaging. In January, he started work for the Conservative Party. In March, a senior Whitehall source told the BBC that Australian-style plain packaging would be introduced here. In July—surprise, surprise—the plan was dropped.

Similar questions have been raised about minimum unit pricing for alcohol. Of course, we have tried to find out the names of Mr Crosby’s clients, which would have had to be disclosed if the Government had produced this Bill rather sooner after their 2010 promise rather than now, as his lobbying company, being a consultancy, would have had to register and disclose its clients. As it is, Mr Shapps said on 17 July, it is a matter for Mr Crosby who his clients within the company are. That is because, as the Minister reiterated to me in a Written Answer on 29 July, Lynton Crosby was not employed by the Government—although, as we know, he was employed by a lobbying company, and by the Conservative Party.

In passing, we might note that although the Minister claims that Part 2 of the Bill is aimed at keeping big money out of politics, the Conservative Party can afford to pay Mr Crosby £500,000 to do his best to keep Mr Cameron in Downing Street. That sounds like big money to me.

Putting that to one side, this example—and there are others—raise two significant questions. One is about a possible conflict of interest caused by a lobbyist working on the Conservative Party leader’s political strategy, but there is also the wider point about the revolving door between government and the lobbying industry. We have just heard about the appointment of a former lobbyist, who also happened to be a Conservative campaigns officer, to oversee public appointments, which sounds to me like double jeopardy. The Civil Service Code states that Whitehall mandarins should be politically independent—a former Conservative worker does not look too independent. The lobbying transparency campaigner, Tamasin Cave, referring to this appointment, said that Ms Wyld had been a lobbyist. She went on to say:

“This job needs someone impartial. It does not bode well”.

Last July, the Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee also looked at the issue from the other end: the revolving door between the Civil Service and the private sector. It urged the Government to adopt a joined-up approach to lobbying regulations and to consider changes to the ACOBA alongside lobbying regulations. All of this needs flushing out if the public are really to see who has the ear of government and whether the Bill’s objective of increasing transparency is to be achieved.

Our amendments tackle the issue of lobbyists coming into the system, either as civil servants or employed by a governing party, rather than the outward move, but both should be of concern in any Bill dealing with the openness and transparency of the lobbying industry. I beg to move.

[Lord Swinfen (Con)]

My Lords, I am not an expert on lobbying by any means, but I wonder whether lobbyists employed by opposition parties should also have their position made public. Opposition parties from time to time can form Governments after an election. The work of lobbyists in opposition is just as important as the work of lobbyists for those parties in government. The noble Baroness needs to redraft her amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I shall start by welcoming the at least partial support expressed by the Labour Front Bench for Part 1 of the Bill, and indeed the commendable sentiment that has been expressed for strengthening Part 1 further. I am sure that as we proceed, the same sort of constructive spirit for the Bill’s aims will be provided by the Labour Front Bench. The revolving door is an issue all the way across politics, which no Government have yet entirely managed to resolve. We recognise that people moving in and out of different private and public forms of life create some problems, and a number of things are now in place to cope with those who move from private industry into government and back again. It is not a new problem with this Government.

For Amendment 95 to cover all three parties, one would need to add,

“those who are employed in voluntary capacities”,

because my party would love to employ a number of these people but could not conceivably afford to pay them. Indeed, I am aware of a number of people associated with consultant lobbyist companies who have advised my party in the past. Perhaps that is an area that might also be considered.

I am conscious that this is very much about Lynton Crosby and Crosby Textor. In listening to the beginning of the speech of the noble Baroness, I felt that in some ways this was an amendment with a very long text but very little content, if I may slightly adapt what she said when starting out.

I note her comment on guests at Chequers and I will take that back. However, I googled Crosby Textor this morning and I can assure the noble Baroness that it would be caught by the new register, since it has offices in both Sydney and London, and would be forced to register and declare its clients under the new Part 1. That is part of what the Bill is about and Crosby Textor would therefore be entirely covered by it. The question of what happens when a member of a consulting company is employed under a contract part-time—as he is—by one of the political parties in government takes us close to the difficult area of how far political parties in government should be covered by this scheme. I have checked and I can assure the noble Baroness that he has not discussed the tobacco question with the Government. I realise that the tobacco question—I was not so aware of the alcohol question—is very sensitive in government. I merely say that Part 1 of the Bill would catch Crosby Textor. We would then know exactly who its clients were; that is part of the justification of Part 1.

Professional lobbyists taking up employment in government is a rather broader issue. We would of course need to know what sort of a committee would look at this. It would be easier to absorb it into the current arrangements for checking on people who move into government from the outside and, indeed, those who then leave government and go back into these sorts of activities, for which Whitehall already has arrangements. However, I think in some ways these two amendments are in order to make sure that Crosby Textor gets on to the agenda, and possibly into tomorrow’s “Today” programme. Having said that, I say: well played. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Lobbyists: Register

Lord Swinfen Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Certainly.

[Lord Swinfen]

My Lords, when we have a register of lobbyists, will it be illegal for those not on the register to lobby?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

There is a voluntary register of public relations companies, which was established in the wake of an earlier inquiry in 2009. However, one of the three bodies that joined that register has now left it. Even within the public relations industry, they disagree among themselves as to who exactly one should be regulating.