Those who do not attend are not entitled to the allowance. The allowance system has been criticised because it allows peers to claim money for attending without necessarily making a contribution. As with MPs, not all the work that members undertake is visible — — much of it is done behind the scenes, researching issues and meeting campaigners and members of the public.
If no parliamentary work is undertaken, no money should be claimed. The large majority of members take these duties seriously and undertake them with diligence.
The project covers the period between 1 September and 31 August , and covers peers who could submit daily attendance allowances in that time period. Data was gathered from three official sources:. The list includes all peers listed on the claims for daily attendance allowances and travel costs by members of the House of Lords in the time period covered as published on the parliamentary website.
This includes those peers on a leave of absence either for part or all of the time period covered. Those who retired or died partway through the period were excluded. Peers are permitted to claim for business-class flights to and from parliament. Receipts obtained through freedom of information requests suggest Lord Cunningham took dozens of flights to and from London.
On the second part of her question, I agree with her and we will now try to work with all the associations and individuals to improve the situation. My Lords, the sad story of this excellent report, so ably introduced by my noble friend Lady Donaghy, is that the Government failed to heed the clarion call to place our professional and business services centre stage in negotiations with the EU. That is hard to explain, given what a great foreign earner those services represent, the sheer numbers employed and the role that they play in servicing other business so that they too can trade and prosper.
The TCA focused on fishing and goods and, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, rather ignored services, leaving them facing barriers to their continuation and growth. In particular, while the TCA provides a framework, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton said, for mutual recognition of professional qualifications, this new system will, in the judgment of TheCityUK, take a long time to yield any meaningful results.
I hope that the Government will hear the need for urgency in making progress on that vital aspect, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. While there are undoubtedly some positives in regard to legal services—a sector mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and others—particularly on where UK lawyers can practise UK and international law under home title anywhere in the EU without requalification, such access is subject to national restrictions.
Importantly, along with all professional and business services, including cultural services, the trade agreement provides little on the movement of people. That is one of the biggest losses for UK professional service providers in doing business in the EU.
Perhaps most worrying since the conclusion of the TCA is the absence of agreement on Lugano, about which I have tabled Written Questions, though I await responses from the Government. Perhaps the Minister can update the House as to why he thinks that the European Commission has concluded that it is. TheCityUK has outlined its priorities, some covering financial services, which are beyond the scope of this report, but a number are germane to our debate, particularly over data adequacy—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally—Lugano and the movement of people.
That is our plea to the Government. Can we tone down the language? Can we stop the playground name-calling and accusations of bad faith? Please can we not even think of triggering dispute mechanisms or other such macho devices? How can we possibly at this moment be setting ourselves on a collision course with the EU by threatening to suspend parts of the Brexit deal, which the Government have only just negotiated and signed, if the EU does not accede to our demands? That is not just important for the protocol, but how does it help our wider relationship with our vital partner, particularly the continuation of the business and professional services on which, as we have heard from all speakers, we are so dependent?
Can we please heed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and look to the future and so keep our eye on the major prize? That is increased and growing trade in professional and business services with our nearest neighbour and our biggest single market—an objective that does not have to be at the expense of trade further afield.
We need better atmospherics to achieve the improvement in our relationships with the EU on the services that we are discussing today. They are vital for our economy, both in the direct benefit of these services and for all the other businesses that they support—goods, fishing, agriculture, academia. Everything that we do with the EU tends to depend on advice, legal advice, professional services and recruitment—all the ones that we are covering today, including, of course, accountancy.
I hope that the noble Lord will offer some real assurances that the Government share our ambition in this regard to ensure that this sector of our economy continues to thrive, grow with the EU and help all the other bits of our economy and, similarly, trade with this biggest and nearest partner. My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, for securing this important debate, which I thought was characterised by some excellent contributions, from her and many other Members.
As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, professional business services are one of our largest and most successful sectors. Internationally, the sector has also excelled. The UK is now second only to the US as the greatest exporter of professional business services in the world. This is something that the UK excels at and that we should be proud of.
Naturally, many noble Lords focused their contributions today on these challenges. I will address many of those comments and questions later, but I think that it is also worth reminding ourselves briefly of what the UK-EU free trade agreement and the Covid relief programme offer our businesses. In practice, this means that most PBS businesses can continue to access EU markets and that they will not be subject to discriminatory barriers to trade while doing so, except where either side has expressly reserved the right to do so.
The agreement means that business travellers can move easily between the EU and the UK for short-term visits —for example, by eliminating nationality requirements for some roles and guaranteeing how long temporary business visitors from the UK can stay in the EU. It is also future proof, which means that our businesses get the most liberal market access that either party grants to any future trading partner as well.
On legal services, we negotiated unprecedented provisions that will help ensure that UK law remains popular and competitive as the governing law of choice for commercial contracts worldwide. We also secured one of the most liberalising and modern digital trade chapters anywhere in the world. Among other things, it makes the cross-border flow of data easier by prohibiting requirements to store or process data in a specific location and thereby avoids costly requirements for British businesses.
Our exit from the EU represents an unparalleled opportunity for the UK to do things differently and better. Our priority is to help the sector adapt to these changes. To that end, we have been operating export helplines, running webinars with experts and offering businesses support via our network of international trade advisers. We have also published extensive guidance on GOV.
UK, including sector-specific landing pages to help individual sectors navigate the guidance available online, enhanced guidance on visa and work permit routes in EU member states and an interactive tool that can be used to find which reservations are most relevant to UK businesses selling services to customers in the EU. These are bespoke resources whose detailed guidance is unmatched by other trading partners worldwide.
The sector has overcome adversity in the past, but none has proved as great as the Covid pandemic. While the sector has suffered, has so far proven a positive year for PBS. One of the ways we are ensuring the continued recovery and growth of the sector is through the PBS council and its working groups. The council has already made great progress this year by jointly publishing the Skills for Future Success report with the Financial Services Skills Commission.
This report explores how to deliver recovery and growth right across the UK and complements the work of the socioeconomic diversity task force, which will provide much-needed evidence on what we can do to progress and retain talent across all backgrounds.
I will now turn to some of the specific points raised by noble Lords in the debate. My noble friends Lord Trenchard and Lady Neville-Rolfe raised the knotty issue of touring musicians, which I know has exercised a number of others in this House. Officials have now spoken to every member state about the importance of touring. DCMS Ministers have also raised touring with their counterparts in a number of member states, including Portugal and Austria. Through this engagement, we have established that the picture is better than previously thought, and that some touring activities may be possible in at least 18 member states without visas or work permits.
This includes many of the most economically important countries, such as France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy. DCMS Ministers are personally involved in the engagement with these priority countries. I hope that reassures my noble friends. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, raised a number of points, including the important subject of financial services. Our new chapter for financial services is already under way.
These are to be: an open and global financial hub; the sector at the forefront of technology and innovation; a world leader in green finance; and a competitive marketplace promoting effective use of capital. The Chancellor was clear that the UK had an abiding interest in a prosperous and productive Europe. Leaving the EU means that we have a unique opportunity to take an approach that better suits our markets while maintaining our high regulatory standards. We are using our new freedoms to build on our historic strength as a global financial centre and to develop our relationships with jurisdictions all around the world, attracting investment and increased opportunities for cross-border trade.
A number of noble Lords raised the recognition of professional qualifications on which the PBS sector often relies to practise overseas. Mutual recognition agreements generally smooth this process.
This framework improves on the one which Canada negotiated with the EU by streamlining certain aspects of the application process. I hope that I can reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, that we have been working hard to provide a suite of support for regulators and for professional bodies wanting to agree these arrangements.
We have established a new recognition arrangements team, published technical guidance and launched a pilot grant funding programme for the PBS sector, specifically to help regulators navigate this important area. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, raised the important issue of mobility.
As a result of the TCA, business travellers do not require a work permit to carry out certain short-term business travel activities, such as attending meetings and conferences or providing after-sales services or translation and market research services.
Some EU member states allow additional activities without the need for a visa or work permit. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe that we have published guidance on visa and work permit routes in 27 out of 30 EU member states. We continue to engage regularly with our embassies in order to better understand the requirements in each country and to support UK nationals when they travel abroad.
We have also secured a review clause on the list of permitted activities for short-term business visitors which will allow both parties to update their commitments further down the line. Reservations that apply to niche sectors are likely to have less of an impact—in particular, I was struck by the one on reindeer herdsmen in Lapland, should the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, wish an alternative career. Those which apply across the EU as a whole or which cover highly regulated professions, for example, lawyers, accountants and architects—which may be of a little more interest to the noble Baroness—are likely to mean that businesses must adapt.
Many businesses which use the reservations tool that I mentioned earlier will likely only need to engage with a handful of member states—for example, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Spain.
I am pleased to reassure the noble Baroness that investment into the UK remains robust. Figures from the Department for International Trade show that during the financial year, new inward investment from the EU created over 21, new jobs in the UK.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, rightly observed—as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—data flows and the digital economy are crucial to supporting cross-border trade in services, not only with the EU but with all our trading partners. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering asked for information about support to small businesses. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and other noble Lords, talked about the Professional Qualifications Bill, which we will seek to progress as much as possible.
Supporting UK accession is the sensible and pragmatic solution for all citizens. However, we understand that member states have not yet been given an opportunity to vote formally on that position. I am running out of time so I will move my remarks to closure. Through trade promotion, we will support the sector to take advantage of opportunities in existing and emerging markets, maintaining and growing its global competitiveness.
My Lords, it is a treat for us to have the Minister here again. He says that there is some scepticism in the House about this matter. I think that there is some mystification, actually. What did they mean by that? That is what we have got down to. And I remain mystified. One day, maybe long into the future, when the noble Lord and I have gone on to other things but are still in the land of the living, we may sup together and hear what was really behind the resistance to amending the memorandum of understanding simply to allow one committee to look at the work of the unit.
Having said that, we are pleased that we are now at the end of the Bill. We talked previously about the number of notifications that it may have to deal with. There is a real challenge there. We seriously wish that unit well as it begins to take on and embed what this soon-to-be Act will enable it to do. It remains for me to thank the last two indomitable warriors on this subject, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, once again for their help, support and the valuable scrutiny that they have provided to this legislation.
The Bill has been improved as a result of the work of this House, but it is now time to let this matter rest. As I set out earlier, the Government have made their case. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will not repeat that case, which was made both in this House and the other place. Let me finish by saying that I appreciate the strength of feeling on this matter and I am sure that we will have further discussions as the work of the ISU takes place.
We must now ensure that the Bill is passed. My Lords, it is clear that the Government have no good reason for refusing to accord the ISC its proper role in overseeing the intelligence input into a decision by the BEIS Secretary of State to forbid an otherwise bona fide investment in an enterprise—the sort of investment that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has just described.
I am sad to say that the Minister cited only the size of the House of Commons majority and gave no argument against proper parliamentary scrutiny. Frankly, if we are to say that this House should never question what the majority in the House of Commons does, you would wonder whether there is any role for this House.
The size of the majority down there is not important; what is important to the security of this country is the correctness of the views that we take. At one point, I think in this House, it was suggested that the Government did not want to amend the MoU case by case, but why not? As we have head, neither the BEIS Select Committee nor its highly respected chair—who I assume will now be made a privy counsellor, since he is about to be briefed on Privy Council terms; I will be there to congratulate him if that happens—have the security clearance or experience to question the intelligence in the sorts of ways that we have been hearing from around the House.
So why not let our experts carry out that work, on behalf of Parliament? What my noble friend is asking for is simple: an amendment to a memorandum of understanding.
Is that too much to ask of the Government? I thank all noble Lords who have contributed; it has again been a good demonstration of the quality of contributions from this House. I have listened very carefully to the points that have been made, in particular by the noble Lords, Lord West, Lord Campbell and Lord Butler, and by my noble friend Lord Lansley.
I will address the primary issue head on. A point made particularly by my noble friend Lord Lansley was about changing the memorandum of understanding, but the question here is not whether the MoU allows for the role proposed by noble Lords, but whether that role is appropriate. Our answer—and I appreciate that noble Lords will disagree—is no.
The Government have made their case, which comes off the back of a resounding vote by the elected Chamber, that no change should be made to the Bill in relation to reporting to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
We maintain our view that the BEIS Select Committee remains the place for scrutiny of the investment security unit and that the Intelligence and Security Committee remains the appropriate committee for scrutiny of the intelligence services, in accordance with the memorandum of understanding and the Justice and Security Act With acknowledgement to all who have spoken and with regard to the points that I have made, I appreciate the difference of opinion on this, but ask once again that the House does not insist on these amendments.
I will take that as a comment and not as a question. I continue to look at all aspects of the Bill to see how they can be improved. The Minister referred to the meeting that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, very kindly held yesterday with the Wellcome Trust, and I very much welcome the reassurances that he has read into the record today. The shorthand for this is the nervousness in academia of bringing in assets—IP, information, ideas and software—rather than just entities.
That was what we discussed at the meeting yesterday, and the Minister has now read into the record the reassurances he gave there, for which we thank him. I thought that the suggestion—I was going to call it a wheeze—of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was rather crafty: if that is what you mean, why do you not say it upfront? However, from what the Minister said, there seems to be a difference between the objective and the subjective criteria.
I do not know whether that is why the Government want them in different clauses, but there is a problem with the subjectivity of this phrase. It is not simply, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, just said, about material influence rather than material control, but also the policy, and it is hard to define what that means. It seems to me a very subjective test for the big change made in Clause 6.
I remain unconvinced that we have got it clear enough. The CMA uses it when talking about mergers, but we are talking here about big companies, not small ones. However, because there is no threshold, much smaller companies will be covered by this. It may be absolutely important for the takeover of very large companies whether competition is taken out of the market. The Minister knows that, as a consumer champion, I am always very happy for the CMA to look at the impact on competition.
However, I have my doubts whether a regime defined for competition in consumer goods and access should be lifted and shifted—the Minister said that there will not be separate guidance—into something that will sometimes affect small start-ups and new developments.
I certainly know more about the subject than I did 43 minutes ago, for which I thank all those who have spoken on the amendment. As has been said, I hope that the Minister and his draftspeople will look at whether this is clear enough, necessary and appropriate for the sorts of investments we are dealing with. When the Minister gives a bequest in a will as the reason for including a particular provision in the Bill, that feels like clutching at straws to me.
I hope there are better arguments than that, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. My Lords, it was clear at Second Reading, and again today from when the noble Lord, Lord Fox, began, that everyone across the House agrees that national security is the number one priority.
The discussion therefore is twofold. First, will what is, and is not, covered in this legislation be clear enough? Secondly, is the balance between security needs and the desire for economic growth, research, innovation and freedom to invest, correctly delineated? On the first issue, it is obvious that the new regime must be based on the best advice coming from across government, as well as on emerging and current threats, and the behaviour and developments of our adversaries.
We will come in the next group to the definition of national security. This first amendment is focused more on the second question that I posed. Will the unit take sufficient account of technology investment, research and innovation, and business opportunities, particularly for SMEs? From everything said at Second Reading and even today, that is an important discussion. We should not expect the Bill, nor its new unit, to be the generator of investment, research and development—that is for an industrial strategy—but the Government must have a careful eye on whether the workings of the Bill have a detrimental impact on technology investment and innovation, while ensuring that the economy does not override security interests.
That is a difficult judgment. If it were not, there would never be any problems for the Government to solve. We welcome such moves and attention being given to making Britain a more attractive place in which entrepreneurs can take companies public.
We hope that the proposals emanating from one of our colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, on relaxations on the use of dual-class shares, to allow founders to keep control over their companies by giving them deciding votes on decisions such as corporate takeovers, could work in harmony rather than at variance with the objectives of the Bill. I hope there will be an opportunity to discuss those interplays as we go forward.
In the meantime, we will consider future amendments that will look at whether the right procedures, definitions, timelines and so on strike the right balance as to workability in making those fine judgments between security and economic interests.
However, this amendment is calling for the Secretary of State to be required to have regard to those other interests. The Minister will say that, of course, he or she is bound to do so. I thank them for proposing this new clause and for enabling a further discussion on the purpose of the Bill.
Amendment 1 seeks to establish an objective for the Bill and include a number of elements to which the Secretary of State must have regard when using his powers.
However, the legal effect of the amendment presents us with a number of challenges. The amendment would require the Secretary of State when exercising his powers under the Bill to safeguard national security in respect of economic and social harm, which is reasonable. It is indeed possible that economic or social harms could give rise to risks to national security, but so could other harms such as physical or military harm.
For example, a hostile actor could use control over a piece of critical infrastructure to put UK citizens in physical danger or they could acquire companies in the UK defence supply chain and thereby degrade our military capabilities.
The absence of other harms in the factors listed by the amendment suggests that the Secretary of State may not use his powers under the Bill to safeguard national security from those harms that I have outlined. It is also unclear how he should have regard to the factors in subsection 3 of the proposed new clause. As the amendment does not say that they are to be regarded as part of national security, that would suggest the scope of the Bill is being expanded beyond national security.
The Bill does not set out the circumstances in which national security is, or may be, considered at risk. That reflects long-standing government policy to ensure that national security powers are sufficiently flexible to protect the nation. It also does not include factors which the Secretary of State must or may take into account in assessing national security risks on the face of the Bill. While it is crucial for investor confidence that there is as much transparency in the regime as possible, there is clearly a limit to how much the Government can and should disclose in this regard, given that the regime deals explicitly with national security matters.
National security risks are multifaceted and constantly evolving. What may not constitute a risk today may well do so in future. We may find over time that such specificity becomes outdated. Indeed, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out, it is enough of a challenge to ensure sufficient specificity in the objectives of the Bill, especially with regard to concepts such as those referenced in the amendment. If the acquisition in question poses a risk to national security, yes, there is the general power, but the point I was making is that, with regard to areas of political and national infrastructure, there are also separate powers in different pieces of legislation that would help to protect in those areas.
First, I thank everyone for their contributions, which I found extremely helpful and thoughtful. In particular—this will not surprise the Minister—the Minister confirmed that it would be possible to call in any threat to democracy or anything like that. I am sorry he did not feel able to answer on when exactly the integrated review will be published, but we live in hope. I was a bit disappointed that the Minister said that he did not want to define national security because it was long-standing government practice not to.
My heart sank at that point, thinking that the Minister must have a better reason. I am not saying I was completely persuaded by his answer, but it is a thoughtful and useful way of thinking about how we approach this.
I hope it is not just because the Government would fear a JR if there are words that could be challenged over whether something should or should not have been brought in. My fear is about the difference between the list and the call-in power. As the list will be mandatory, people will know what they have to do. Where investors, researchers or companies will probably have the biggest fear in respect of the call-in power is that they will not know in advance.
I hope that we will come to the possibility of either safe harbours or a quick turnaround—though that does not get over the call-in power—because that seems the area of greatest uncertainty.
We will probably have to return to that. In a sense, it is the same issue when it comes to critical national infrastructure. I guess I should leave it to those far more experienced in infrastructure to know whether those comments are helpful. We heard a thoughtful and challenging response to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. If I understood him correctly, he suggested that we start at the back end: we discuss the assets; we discuss the acquirer; we look at the definition of control—which is the end part of the Bill—and use that to define national security in the front part of the Bill.
I am bemused by whether that is the right way round; it may be, but by the time we have defined it, we may have got to it. However, I want to read more carefully what the noble Lord said because the elements appear to be there, but it seems slightly upside down.
The noble Lord also said:. If we do, what is the harm in writing them down? He may know that Ministers would have regard to those issues, but will everyone else know what they are? I have a lot more to think about having heard the wisdom expressed today. It is possible that we will want to come back to this issue on Report—maybe in a more refined way; I am sure that those who have read the Commons debates carefully will have noticed that my words were not all of my own drafting. I thank everyone who has contributed—more sincerely, perhaps, than in other debates.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. My Lords, we support the approach of this amendment. As we have all made clear, the new regime must focus on protecting national security. The clue is in the title of the Bill.
The definition of national security has to take best advice from across the Government about the threats and behaviour of our adversaries. While I hope the Government will monitor the impact of the Act on technological investment, innovation and SMEs—which I hope a different part of the Government is actively supporting—those interests, along with employment, investment and competition, cannot and should not trump national security, albeit that I hope that the Government would consider mitigating any detrimental domestic impact of placing security first if that were needed.
Clearly, concerns about any political pressure, rather than any disregard for the issues listed, give rise to this amendment. The tone and the purpose of it are ones that we share. I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate and thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for tabling the amendment. It seeks to clarify that certain factors, namely employment effects, reciprocal investment or trading opportunities and the desire to protect UK businesses from international competition, cannot be taken into account in assessing whether a trigger event would give rise to national security risks.
I was surprised to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh are now differing on some things. That is most unusual; it is something to be encouraged for the future. My noble friend articulates a reasonable concern here: that a regime used to screen investment for national security purposes could be used to screen investments more widely. Indeed, the shadow Secretary of State, in his opening speech at Second Reading in the other place, argued that the Bill should include an industrial strategy test—I was therefore surprised to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, supporting this amendment.
As such, I have some sympathy with the aims of this amendment. I can, however, reassure my noble friend that the Bill is about protecting national security, nothing more and nothing less.
As I said on previous groups, this reflects long-standing government policy to ensure that national security powers are sufficiently flexible to protect the nation. The Bill also does not include factors which the Secretary of State must or may take into account when assessing national security risks.
Instead, factors that the Secretary of State expects to take into account in exercising the call-in power are proposed to be set out in the statement that we have provided a draft of and is provided for by Clause 3. The draft statement, published upon introduction of the Bill, includes details of what the Secretary of State is likely to be interested in when it comes to national security risks.
This includes certain sectors of the economy, and the types of acquisitions that may raise concern. It does not currently state anything which the Secretary of State intends not to take into account with regard to national security. This is a conscious choice. If the Secretary of State were to start listing areas of the economy or types of acquisition that he considered unlikely to present national security concerns, I suspect that this would result in a long and dense document of little use.
We judge that it is therefore more helpful for businesses and investors to set out where the Secretary of State is more, rather than less, likely to use the call-in power. I understand, however, the concern that without a definition extraneous factors may be taken into account. My reassurance for my noble friend comes from the courts.
Were the Secretary of State to seek to use the powers in the Bill for a purpose beyond national security, his decisions could be challenged in the courts through judicial review and could not be successfully upheld. It is with this judicial oversight in mind that the Secretary of State is constrained in delivering the purpose of the Bill. I am therefore confident that the Bill as currently drafted contains sufficient safeguards against inappropriate use of the regime, and that the Government are already providing a good amount of information for parties affected by the regime on its likely areas of focus.
I hope that my explanation, taken together with these points, provides sufficient reassurance to my noble friend, and that she therefore feels able to withdraw her amendment. Can the Minister confirm whether all the suggested changes that come back in that consultation will actually be published? I will make a comment about the document that has arrived in front of us today because, in a sense, it gives a very good description of how good consultation works—never mind the timing; we have made that point—in relation to the degree of change that looks as if it is going to happen as a result of conversation on that particular issue.
However, it then feeds into what happens if, had this been the statement, changes were wanting to be made. For example, what we have heard today, as a result of some very good consultation, is that the definition of AI has been narrowed significantly to focus on three high-risk applications: identification of objects, people and events; advanced robotics; and cybersecurity.
Perhaps it is a bit late to regret, along with it, that the fund does not cover parish council elections. Indeed, for many people, that is their first attempt at the ballot box, and it might have encouraged more disabled people to make that same first attempt.
However, this is a pilot, and we hope that if it is successful it will be rolled out in a comprehensive way. My questions, therefore, are not about what might have been but about this specific order, which allows the fund expenditure to be excluded.
Will the Minister confirm that anything that the fund agrees to finance will then automatically be covered by the exclusion? In other words, there will be no additional formality to be gone through? We do not want the fund saying that it is covered and then being told afterwards that it is not. There needs to be just one lot of decision-takers, and I assume that it will be the fund decision-takers. It would be useful to have that confirmed. What is being done to promote awareness of the fund?
In preparation for today, I did the usual thing and tried to find out about it. Google was rather more helpful and got me on to the relevant site. Given that the Electoral Commission wants to be involved in this, I would have thought that it would do more to make knowledge of the fund better known, rather than simply being able to find out about this specific order, which is not of interest to disabled people once it is done.
Information on the fund itself was not brilliant. I could not get hold of the application form from the website although it has now been sent to me. It also was not clear how quickly a decision would be made, which I should have thought was also quite important for candidates to decide whether to go ahead.
They need to know that before they start spending too much of their own money. Although we are keen for the Electoral Commission to be involved in encouraging and helping disabled people to be candidates, we hope that it will smarten up its own access via the web in time to do this. We very much support the exclusion of fund expenditure but rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we wonder whether this leaves a transparency gap.
It would be useful to know what disclosure of such funds and their use will be made. Mention was made of a voluntary system, and I wonder whether that is sufficient or whether the fund should itself be transparent. Finally, can the Government assure us that if this pilot proves a success, it will be rolled out fully and with money following intent? As we know, the groups who will benefit from this are highly underrepresented at the moment. Indeed, I cannot believe that this Government would have so undermined the lives of so many disabled people as they have done both under the Welfare Reform Act and now the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill had we had more people as MPs, or indeed Peers, but especially MPs, from those particularly affected groups.
We very much want this fund to be a success and we hope that its administrators, the Electoral Commission and the Government will play a very full part in helping disabled people to find out about the fund and then stand for and be elected to public office.
I am sorry, but I hope that they will all be Labour if they get elected. My Lords, I thank those who have spoken for their general welcome for this order.
0コメント