*CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY*
Baroness Angela Smith, Shadow Leader of the House of Lords
Motion to establish Select Committee to consider impact of Clauses 10 & 11 of Trade
Union Bill
20 January 2016
My Lords, our scrutiny role appears to have excited some interest in recent months with our
powers, and our limitations, as a second chamber becoming more widely known and
understood - and indeed facing scrutiny.
So, let me be crystal clear about what my motion seeks to do and what it does not do.
Noble Lords will be aware that Clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill are deeply controversial. These
2 clauses basically deal with how Trade Unions raise and spend their members money for
political purposes.
The Government contends that this has no direct bearing on political party funding,
specifically Labour Party funding. Both we and the Trade Unions contend that it does.
Im not seeking today to make the case one way or the other but I am seeking a way
through that will allow us to consider the Bill in the normal way, and at the same time
provide for a Select Committee to examine this specific point.
The Noble Lord Tyler also made a similar proposal about a Select Committee in his excellent
speech at Second Reading.
The merits of our approach are: it will take the political argument on these clauses away from the debates on the
Bill during the normal Committee stage. It will ensure that the other issues in
these two clauses receive proper and full consideration without being clouded by
this very specific party political point;
Select Committees of Your Lordships House are highly regarded. Such a
Committee could take evidence, including from those who have independent
expertise to assess any potential impact of the governments proposals on party
political funding;
it would examine the Governments proposals in light of the recommendations
of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in relation to political party funding.
A Committee that is now chaired by the Noble Lord, Lord Bew;
it would not prevent any of our other Committees from reporting on this Bill;
and, a Select Committee could make recommendations and offer advice as to
whether the legislation could be improved.
My Lords, what the motion does not do is - in any way seek to hinder, delay or impede the
passage of the Bill. Ive suggested the 29th February time limit for a Select Committee to
report back as that would allow time for consideration and time for any findings to be taken
into account for Report stage.
I appreciate that the Noble Lady, the Minister and the Government do not share our
concerns.
BIS Minister Nick Boles responded to a written question:The proposals in the Bill are not about party funding.
He continued: Therefore no assessment has been made in relation to the impact on the
finances of any political party.
In answer to the same question, the Noble Lady, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, responded:There has been no assessment. However, the proposals in the Bill are not about party
funding.
Many Noble Lords will also have seen her letter circulated yesterday that reiterated the
same point at some length.
I wish I could accept those assurances. But we believe the government is wrong or at the
very least, in denial, of the consequences of clauses 10 and 11.
To be precise - our genuinely held concern is that this aspect of the Bill will have a significant
impact on the resources of one major political party my party, the Labour Party. And in
doing so, it will both disrupt the political balance in the UK and have a damaging effect on
the electoral process and our democracy.
Any examination of this issue by Your Lordships House should be evidence based rather
than reliant on opinion even those of myself or the Noble Lady, the Minister. We should
examine the facts and the detail.
But the problem is that even when we do eventually receive the long promised Impact
Assessment and I find it extraordinary that a Bill can get this far without one there will
be no consideration at all of any impact on party political funding. It wont even look at it as
a potential unintended consequence.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life, then chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly, sought to
reach political consensus on this vexed issue in its 2011 Report, Political party finance:
ending the big donor culture. They made four recommendations, only one of which has
found its way into any legislative proposals from the Government. This one on Trade Union
funding.
The Noble Lord Bew who now chairs the Committee wrote this week that:. The committee made a similar recommendation but as part of an overall package of
measures.
And he quoted from the Report that:
Failure to resist the temptation to implement some parts while rejecting others, would
upset the balance we have sought to achieve.
The Committee itself was very clear on this point. I quote from the Report:Both as a matter of principle and to support its sustainability, the regulatory regime must
be fair to all political parties, and widely believed to be so.
Now, by rejecting that there is any impact on such party political funding, despite this being
so similar to the Committee recommendation, the Government is seeking to avoid proper
examination and consideration of any potential impact.
I have to say to the Noble Lady, just saying it isnt so, is not enough.
Across this House Noble Lords will hold many different views about how political parties
receive their funding whether from trade unions, donors or businesses.
But whatever our views, I hope that we would be able to find agreement that it would be
totally wrong for any government to use its power to attack the funding of other political
parties, particularly the official opposition.
There is precedent, for such a Select Committee - although I should inform Your Lordships
House that the precedent goes much further than my proposal today.
In 2004, the now retired Noble Lord, Lloyd of Berwick successfully moved a motion that a
Select Committee should examine proposals in the entire Constitutional Reform Bill, over
which there was some controversy at the time. That Select Committee delayed the progress
of the Bill Committee.
This motion proposes something significantly more narrow a very focussed and time
limited Select Committee on the impact of two clauses - that will not delay consideration of
the Bill. And by being so focused it can be undertaken in a reasonable time scale the
Noble Lord Strathclyde has proved how prompt we can be when we set our minds to it,
without losing out on quality.
There is clearly a fundamental difference of opinion between the Government and
ourselves. Were not ever going to deal with that by seeing who can shout the loudest and
nor should we try. Surely it makes sense to take a step back and ensure a separate, careful,
civilised, evidence based consideration from a Select Committee of this House?
I hope that my explanation has clarified the purpose, the objective, the wisdom and the
reasonableness of the motion.
I beg to move.
-Ends-