National Security Bill Commons Reason and Amendment 3.56pm Motion A
Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom That this House do not insist on its
Amendment 22B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason
22C. 22C: Because the law already makes sufficient provision in
relation to donations to political parties. The Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will also...Request free trial
National Security
Bill
Commons Reason and Amendment
3.56pm
Motion A
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 22B, to which the
Commons have disagreed for their Reason 22C.
22C: Because the law already makes sufficient provision in
relation to donations to political parties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will also speak to Motion
B and ask that this House do not insist on its Amendment 122B and
do agree with Commons Amendment 122C in lieu.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for meeting once again with
me and speaking with the Security Minister. During the previous
debate on the Bill in this place, I talked about the importance
of the Bill finishing, and continued engagement is the way to
achieve that. I thank him and all in this House again for their
valued scrutiny of this Bill.
I will start with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord
Carlile. I understand the intention behind it. The Government are
very much alive to the risk presented by foreign interference, as
evidenced by the various ways we are seeking to tackle it through
this Bill. However, as I said during previous debates on this
matter:
“Political parties are already required by law to take all
reasonable steps to verify the identity of a donor and whether
they are permissible”.—[Official Report, 21/6/23; col. 227.]
The introduction of an independent review to consider the matter
is not an approach the Government would support. The scope of the
review the noble Lord proposes implicitly suggests that the duty
should be on political parties to prevent foreign interference,
not the relevant enforcement bodies with the appropriate tools
and knowledge. The Government submit that this is not the way to
approach concerns about the risk of foreign donations entering
our political system, although we agree that work is needed in
this area.
As such, I offer an alternative to today’s amendment in lieu. If
noble Lords agree with the Government that the amendment before
the House is not the right approach, the Government will commit
to consult on enhancing information sharing between relevant
agencies or public bodies to help identify and mitigate the risks
of foreign interference in political donations that are regulated
by electoral law. The relevant public bodies in scope of the
consultation would include Companies House and the Electoral
Commission, among others. This consultation would take place
within a year of the Bill coming into force. It would seek views
on how relevant agencies and bodies can obtain and share
information relating to the provenance of a donation, which might
not be available to the recipient of a donation. We consider that
greater information sharing may well help in the prevention and
identification of breaches of the law in relation to
impermissible donations from foreign powers.
The Government also commit to tabling a report in the House at
the end of this consultation which will set out conclusions and
next steps. I want to be clear that the Government’s intention is
not for any changes made as a result of this consultation to
become a tool to be wielded against political parties where they
could not have reasonably known the provenance of a donation. As
I have noted before, political parties do not have the
investigative capabilities of banks to trace layers of financial
transactions. Rather, this consultation would look at ways in
which information sharing between the relevant agencies and
public bodies that do have those capabilities could support
parties in mitigating the risk of foreign donations.
The rules on political donations are clear: donations from
foreign powers, whether made directly or indirectly, are illegal.
This consultation will allow us to consider how best to
strengthen the information-sharing and enforcement system that
supports those existing rules. This goes a considerable way
towards addressing the noble Lord’s concerns, and in a way that
will deliver real benefit. I am committing the Government to
undertake this work in good faith, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord
Carlile, to withdraw his amendment on this matter, in favour of
our suggested approach.
4.00pm
Before moving on, I impress upon your Lordships the importance of
agreement on this issue. The Government have agreed that there is
more work to be done here, but we should not let a debate about
the exact terms of that work stand in the way of the Bill. The
National Security Bill is a foundational piece of legislation
and, if this amendment is approved today, there is a real risk of
significant delays to implementation due to late Royal
Assent.
I turn to the amendment tabled in lieu by the Government,
relating to the ISC memorandum of understanding. The Government
carefully considered the arguments for such a review and,
although there is provision for review within the Justice and
Security Act, the strength of feeling in both this House and the
other place means that the Government were willing to respond to
this issue with their own amendment. The difference between the
Government amendment and the amendment in lieu tabled by the
noble Lord, , ahead of the last debate is
relatively minor. It removes the requirement for the review of
the MoU to be completed within six months of the measure coming
into force, to give more adequate time to conduct that review
alongside the work to implement the Bill. While we have built in
more flexibility in the end date of the review, I hope that noble
Lords will recognise that this amendment delivers the effect
sought in the amendment of the noble Lord, .
Finally, I will address the amendment tabled by the noble Lord,
Lord West, which looks to remove subsection (2) of the
Government’s amendment in lieu. This would remove the six-month
time limit from the amendment, and the Government do not support
this approach. The six-month limit is an important part of
showing that the Government take seriously the fact that
consideration of whether the MoU needs amending should commence
in a timely manner. Removing the time limit would suggest that
the Government could delay consideration beyond six months, which
I do not think this House would support. So I encourage the noble
Lord not to move his amendment, and I beg to move.
(CB)
My Lords, I now have the opportunity to speak to Amendment 22D. I
thank the Minister and the others involved in the discussions we
have had. I give particular thanks for the involvement of the
Security Minister, whom he mentioned, in the creation of what the
Minister offered today.
In my reamendment, I offered an independent review, which is
quite a physical way—to use a metaphor—of examining the law in
this area. We have been offered a much more neurological review,
to use another metaphor, because it involves going to every place
where knowledge is held within government of the possibilities by
which foreign powers may contribute to political parties.
I am particularly grateful to the Minister because the Government
are offering something that not only places a clear moral
obligation on political parties by which their honesty will be
judged, but which goes further. It means that there will be
standards by which their honesty will be judged, which has
potential implications for political parties that they had better
pay regard to. Compared with the no-action approach when we last
discussed this matter, what was decided today is a generous
response by the Government.
I will close with another metaphor. The right reverend Prelate,
who read Psalm 24 in Prayers this afternoon, spoke of a “pure
heart” and “clean hands”. I doubt very much whether these
measures will purify the hearts of political parties, but it will
certainly make their hands much cleaner. I therefore announce my
intention not to move Motion A1.
(Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion B1, an amendment to government
Motion B. I am very pleased that the Government have finally
proposed an alternative amendment, recognising that only the ISC
can undertake effective scrutiny of intelligence and security
work undertaken by the Government.
The ISC supports the government Motion on the basis that my
Motion is also accepted. It removes the requirement for
consideration of whether the ISC’s MoU needs to be updated to
commence within six months. We are concerned that such a time
restriction may have unintended consequences; it might
inadvertently affect the ability of the ISC to oversee security
or intelligence activity related to the Bill. For example, if the
Government commence new security or intelligence activity as part
of the Bill outside the ISC’s remit—beyond the six-month
period—the Government could attempt to argue that they will not
consider any commensurate update to the ISC’s MoU as
considerations are required to start within six months of the
Bill coming into force.
Because of the Government’s long-standing refusal to update the
ISC’s MoU, and their continued arguments to justify their refusal
to accept independent oversight of the committee, the committee
is of the view that it will be much safer for us to remove this
time limitation to avoid any possible confusion in the future.
Although that sounds like a lawyer’s argument, this is a lawyer’s
issue; it is something we have to be quite careful about.
While the government Motion will not remedy the significant gap
in ISC oversight that already exists in relation to intelligence
and security matters, it at least seeks to stop the oversight gap
becoming even bigger. I hope that this reflects a turning point
and the beginning of a shift in the Government’s position,
including their acceptance of the need for robust, independent
and democratic oversight of secret intelligence matters.
However, the House should not forget the wider problem, and we
should continue to insist on a remedy. With my ISC colleagues in
the other place, I have already explained repeatedly why the
ISC’s MoU needs to be updated more broadly. I will not repeat
those arguments now, other than to say that currently there is
insufficient parliamentary oversight of the Government’s
intelligence and security activities.
Intelligence and security matters are too important for there not
to be comprehensive parliamentary oversight. There can be no
activity by the Executive which escapes democratic oversight. The
Motion is the first indication from the Government that they have
begun to grasp this fundamental principle and the importance
attached to it by those in this House. Despite the Motion’s
significant limitations, I support it being added to the Bill,
with my own Motion, to ensure that there are no unintended
consequences which may negatively affect the ability of the ISC
to oversee the entirety of this regime. I encourage the
Government to use this as a foundation for constructive
engagement on the rest of the ISC’s MoU, which, as I have
explained, urgently needs updating.
(Con)
My Lords, I will speak to this closing part of the Bill. I
declare my interest as the senior treasurer of the Conservative
Party. It is not on the register of interests, because the
registrar does not accept it as a declarable interest; I do not
know why, but I bring it to your Lordships’ attention now.
I wish to speak because, as this debate concludes, it would be
unfortunate if the reader of this debate and previous debates was
left with the conclusion that political parties are in any way
seeking to obtain donations from foreign parties or do not take
considerable steps to ensure that foreign parties or
intermediaries do not make donations to political parties. In the
previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord West, commented that
“it is perfectly possible for companies to make significant
donations to political parties despite clearly not making
operating profits and therefore with limited explanations of how
they can afford such donations and where the money comes
from”.—[Official Report, 21/6/23; col. 237.]
However, many companies can of course raise substantial sums of
money and not make operating profits— I have personal experience
of that. That is not the issue; the issue is that regulated
donees have to be UK-registered companies incorporated in the UK
which carry on business in the UK. I know from my experience that
considerable lengths are taken to ensure that those companies are
companies that carry on business, by any definition, in the UK.
That is a requirement of the Political Parties, Elections and
Referendums Act 2000.
The companies must also be registered with Companies House. Later
this afternoon, we will finalise our debates on the Economic
Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, in which I have had a
large involvement. From that, it is clear that Companies House
will have substantially greater access to information on
companies’ accounts digitally to assess who the persons of
significant control are.
Accepting or funnelling unlawful donations is already illegal.
Every donation over £7,500 is declared and you can take my word
for it that any donation that one might think is, shall we say,
unusual leads to lots of inquiries from the press, which is
perfectly reasonable, and others such as political opponents. The
Electoral Commission has 233 staff. It has resources this year of
£25.5 million. It is responsible for looking after political
parties, not much more than that.
It is not particularly obvious to me what more political parties
could do. They are not banks; they are not HMRC. It would be
inappropriate to create a very false impression. Donors do not
control parties. They do not influence or determine policy. They
typically give modest sums of money because they believe in
supporting a party and wish it to succeed. We do not wish to slip
into state funding, which would be a very dangerous route. In
fact, donors to all political parties should be thanked and
recognised for their contribution to civil society.
(CB)
I slightly despair listening to the noble Lord. Can we just ask
for a little humility from treasurers of all political parties? I
am afraid there is plenty of evidence that the garden is not as
perfect as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, is saying.
(Con)
I beg to disagree and am happy to offer humility. I note that
recently the Labour Party returned a donation from a Mr Ian
Rosenblatt which it decided was inappropriate. All credit to it.
It happens regularly. This is not a political issue; this a
cross-political matter. As I say, every donation is listed, so
there is 100% transparency. I welcome my noble friend the
Minister’s proposals, which I think are extremely sensible and
helpful to this argument.
(LD)
We on these Benches very much welcome the concessions that the
Government have made. I disagree with the rather overoptimistic
interpretation of where we are from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh.
In the last exchanges, the Minister said that the National
Security Bill was about national security and not about donations
to political parties, but donations to political parties from
foreign powers are a matter of national security.
Indeed, in the last Commons debate on this, a number of rather
distinguished Conservatives intervened to say how strongly they
supported the amendment as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord
Carlile, on the last occasion. I recall Sir saying that he found it “very
difficult to disagree” with anything in the amendment. He is
currently on the ISC and was previously a member of the Committee
on Standards in Public Life when it was writing its report on
public finance.
I have just read a paper on political finance that the Institute
for Government has just published. That stresses how rapidly the
context is moving and how the law needs to adjust to cope with
that. It particularly stresses the extension of overseas voting
rights to British citizens who have been resident abroad for a
very long time, many of them dual nationals. Checking on where
the ultimate source is for those things is going to be extremely
difficult and probably impossible, but political parties should
be on their guard against undue influence and the suggestions the
Government are now making perhaps will help political parties to
take further moves in that direction
I was also struck by the speech that made in the Commons last week
about a donor to the Conservative Party who had given
£750,000—not a modest donor, even by the terms of the noble Lord,
Lord Leigh—who had spoken openly about buying influence and
“access capitalism” as part of what he expected. This was a dual
national whose fortune appears to have come largely from
contracts within a number of post-Soviet states.
There is a problem there, and it requires investigation, and I
welcome the Government’s acceptance that there is a problem and
that it needs further investigation, and we look forward to
reading the text of the amendment that the Government will move
in the Commons and to the further work that they will do then—we
hope in co-operation with other parties—to last beyond the next
election. This is an area where we need to have electoral rules
that are agreed by all the participants.
4.15pm
(LD)
To follow my noble friend to conclude from these Benches on this
part of the Bill, I wish to commend the Minister for listening
and taking back to the department a very strong view from this
House that more needed to be done in this area. I also commend
the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his persistence on this area. I
respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, . Of course, we all
know that there is a distinction between the small donors—those
who give small sums of money either as a member or as a supporter
of a political party: in my case, in my former constituency,
there were all too small numbers of small donors, regrettably,
but there were those who would bake a cake for a raffle—and
individuals who give really quite enormous sums to political
parties. On the one hand, I understand the argument that there
should not be a distinction between the two groups, if someone is
of wealth and means and they believe in the same thing as someone
without wealth and means. However, as my noble friend indicated,
with regret I share more the view of the noble Lord, Lord
Carlile, in this regard.
We would not be where we are in pursuing and being persistent
with this issue if we did not know that the Electoral Commission
was in effect asking us to do it. I have met the Electoral
Commission frequently, and I do not think that it is relevant to
highlight its resources when it has been very clear to us in
saying that it does not have the powers to carry out what,
ultimately, I believe it should be able to carry out—to ask
political parties for due diligence as to the source of large
donations. I hope that the government review will take us on that
journey and provide an evidence base, on which I believe there
will be a degree of consensus.
I thank the Government for their response and look forward to the
review taking place, especially as it will start with the
competent authorities that will have the information available to
them. The Government are taking through the economic crime Bill,
reforming and updating the mechanisms through unexplained wealth
orders. It strikes me that that is a very good opportunity to
look at some of the processes around UWOs, which are designed to
be streamlined and not burdensome on authorities, to see whether
they can be the model by which we would look at the requirements
on political parties. On this issue, I have previously talked
about the jarring position that, if a politically exposed person
who is open to unexplained wealth order mechanisms, instead of
giving to a political party used that money to buy a property,
the relevant competent authorities would have to go through a
process of due diligence for that property. However, as my noble
friend said, on the concern about buying influence rather than
buying a property, there is no mechanism that is open. I hope
that that loophole will be closed. The Government have been clear
in their guidance on the duties on the public and competent
authorities to access data for unexplained wealth orders, so we
should be in a better position.
Finally, as I said in the previous debate, this is likely to be
the most expensive year coming up in British politics. I hope
that we will have cleaner hands, but they will not be empty.
Therefore, it is how we ensure that with the source of that money
going into British politics, especially in the lead-up to
election campaigns, the transparency is not just around the donor
but around where that money is from for substantial donations. I
hope very much that we have started the process of rectifying
this deficiency in the British system, and I thank the Minister
for starting it.
(Lab)
My Lords, I begin by saying how much we support the amendments of
the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I am glad that the Government have
listened and come to an amicable agreement with the noble Lord
which takes us forward. I thank the Minister for the way he has
done that and for the concession that the Government have made on
the updating of the memorandum of understanding, although clearly
issues remain between the ISC and the Government, hence Motion B1
tabled by my noble friend Lord West, which we support. Aside from
the Motion itself, it will allow continuing discussions, and
indeed perhaps negotiations, around how the memorandum of
understanding can be revised or replaced, including by
negotiation, hence its importance.
I think it is really significant that still, even at this late
stage of the Bill, my noble friend Lord West, speaking on behalf
of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which gives
parliamentary oversight of the activities of the security
services, is not happy with where we have arrived at. I think it
is incumbent on the Government to reach an agreement with the
ISC. Clearly, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord West
this afternoon, we are not in a situation where that has
occurred. There are all sorts of issues that remain between the
Government and the ISC, as has been evidenced by various things
that have happened today, and the Government need to respond to
those.
I will add just a couple of other points. One is that the
Government gave a commitment during the passage of the Justice
and Security Act 2013 and the Minister gave assurances to
Parliament that the memorandum of understanding was a live
document that would be regularly reviewed and updated. Are the
Government of today completely ignoring that commitment that was
made to Parliament? If so, we are in a really difficult
situation, because it means that parliamentary oversight is
undermined by the fact that Ministers making pledges to
Parliament can just be ignored in the future by the Government. I
say—we often say, all of us say—that we will not press an
amendment, on the basis that the Minister, speaking from the
Dispatch Box, makes commitments that are read into the record.
That is an important part of parliamentary scrutiny. Ministers
are asked to do that and Members of Parliament in the other place
and noble Lords withdraw amendments. But here we have an example
of where the Intelligence and Security Committee is saying that
pledges and commitments were made to Parliament that the
memorandum of understanding would be regularly updated and the
Government have not done that or are still not in agreement with
the ISC. I think that is a really important point.
For the avoidance of doubt, I remind your Lordships again that I
do not seek to compel the Prime Minister to go to the
Intelligence and Security Committee. I shall just say what I
believe, and your Lordships will have to make up their own minds.
Given that the Intelligence and Security Committee is the
oversight body for this Parliament, I would have thought that if
the ISC were regularly asking the Prime Minister to attend, the
Prime Minister would go—not because he is compelled to go but
because it is an important part of that parliamentary oversight
and the Prime Minister of our country negotiating and liaising
personally with the Intelligence and Security Committee is of
real importance. So I say to noble Lords, as others have heard me
say before, that all of us would be surprised by the fact that no
Prime Minister has been since 2014; nearly 10 years. It has been
nine years, in case I am quoted as not being accurate, since a
Prime Minister has been. So I gently say that, while I do not
seek to compel the Prime Minister, I politely ask the noble Lord,
Lord Sharpe, whether the Home Office has suggested to the Prime
Minister that, in his diary, he might consider going to see the
Intelligence and Security Committee when he can.
My noble friend Lord West’s amendment raises several important
issues, but the most significant is that we need to send a
message through supporting it that the ISC is still not at one
with the Government. That is a serious issue and needs somehow to
be resolved. I believe that supporting my noble friend’s
amendment will continue to put pressure on the Government to
ensure that they come to an arrangement with the ISC in the end,
such is its importance. If my noble friend chooses to test the
opinion of the House, we will be happy to support his Motion
B1.
(Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, very much for his
words and his engagement on a number of matters throughout the
Bill, and for not pressing his Motion. I also thank other noble
Lords who have participated in this very short debate, including
my noble friend , who brought a very
useful perspective on the current state of play with regard to
political party donations. I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord
Wallace, that donations from foreign powers are already illegal
and suggest that the word “consult” means that all political
parties will be consulted.
On Motion B, the noble Lord, , said that he does not seek to
compel the Prime Minister to come to the ISC. That is certainly
not the tone of the remarks he has made in a number of debates in
this House. It seems to me that he does seek to compel the Prime
Minister to attend the ISC. He will know that I have answered
before the question as to whether the Home Office and No. 10
Downing Street have had discussions on this subject. I will not
answer it again. I have nothing else to say on Motion B, as I
have already spoken to it. I ask this House not to insist on its
Amendment 122B and to agree with the House of Commons in its
Amendment 122C.
Motion A1 not moved.
Motion A agreed.
Motion B
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 122B and do agree
with the Commons in their Amendment 122C in lieu.
122C: Page 62, line 13, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Intelligence and Security Committee: memorandum of understanding
(1) The Prime Minister and the Intelligence and Security
Committee of Parliament must consider whether the memorandum of
understanding under section 2 of the Justice and Security Act
2013 should be altered (or replaced) to reflect any changes
arising out of this Act.
(2) Consideration under subsection (1) must begin before the end
of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this
section comes into force.”
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 122D as an amendment to
Amendment 122C—
122D: Leave out subsection (2).”
(Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has put it far better than I
have. I am afraid that there has been a breakdown in trust
between the ISC and the Government, although the Minister on the
Front Bench has been very helpful in this area. This is such an
important issue, and we cannot get our minds around what has gone
wrong. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the
House.
[Division 2
Division on Motion B1
Content
201
Not Content
210
Motion B1 disagreed.
Held on 4 July 2023 at
4.28pm](/Lords/2023-07-04/division/89B7C077-DFA5-4272-9994-29ED06DDEBFF/LordsChamber?outputType=Names)
4.38pm
Motion B agreed.
|
