That is a disappointment, but I have to say that it is not surprising that Liberal Democrat Members may wish to avoid the scrutiny to which such groups might want to subject their record come the next election.
I speak as a trustee of a charity and as someone who is deeply careful about the way in which the money is spent. I make sure, as it is a trustee’s job to do, that we do not take decisions that may land the charity in any kind of difficulty. We want to be sure that the money that we have worked hard to raise and that it is our job to look after is not misspent on having to buy legal advice or defend ourselves in court.
I am very concerned about what may happen if there is a charity campaigning on, perhaps, the closure of a hospital and an election candidate decides to support that cause. The charity may not have made the decision to align itself with a political party or candidate, but they somehow become entwined. There will be a loser in that election, as there always is, and what might happen then? Can the other parties who have not been successful in the election mount a challenge? Who would be responsible for paying for the defence of that charity as a result of the outcome of such an election?
There are very great concerns, therefore, and my sense is that the Leader of the House was not properly cognisant of them before leading this debate today. I can only hope that he becomes more alive to them
during the course of the Committee stage, although I have to say that I am a bit doubtful of that based on my experience of serving on Committees.
It would have been far preferable to have had some form of pre-legislative scrutiny, but that is not where we are. I must commend my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on, in effect, creating a process for trying to inject further scrutiny of this Bill.
There are very real concerns—they are not invented concerns—and I look forward to hearing the Minister trying to deal with some of them when he sums up.
5.1 pm