Business without Debate
Tom Brake Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
In the circumstances, I think it appropriate to make a few points. First, this motion will allow us to resolve not to sit in Westminster Hall tomorrow. This follows the decision of the International Development Committee, many of whose members one assumes will want to attend tomorrow’s events in Westminster Hall to commemorate Nelson Mandela, not to proceed with its business, as agreed by the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, who intervened a few minutes ago to confirm that.
The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) made a number of alternative proposals about the timing, for example, although I do not know whether the International Development Committee considered that because I was not party to the discussions. If we do not proceed with this motion, the impact would be that the business would still appear on the Order Paper and a Chair, Clerks and Doorkeepers would need to be on a rota to attend tomorrow’s business even though it was not taking place. On that basis, it seems sensible to ask the House to resolve the matter in order to clarify the position to the public, and for the convenience of everyone else.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has just mentioned the public. Given the importance of the Westminster Hall debates, some members of the public may have made arrangements to come to London specifically to attend them, so we are probably inconveniencing members of the public as well.
Tom Brake
My hon. Friend has made a telling point. I cannot disagree with him: some people may indeed have been inconvenienced as a result of this decision. I therefore hope that the alternative dates will be widely publicised to enable them—we hope—to attend the debate in future. I also hope that they will take account of the fact that there was a strong demand for this event, and the fact that, because of the way in which things happened, it was not possible to predict that it would clash with a debate initiated by the International Development Committee that they had wished to attend.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment of Standing Orders
Tom Brake Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
I rise to speak on behalf of the Government in support of the motion relating to Select Committee statements and to speak to the motion on Back-Bench business moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), to which I will wish to move the amendments standing in my name and that of the Leader of the House. I thank him for opening the debate as he did and for clearly setting out the effect of and the thinking behind his motion and for explaining that his moment has not come as the Tea Room was deathly silent in pledging support for it.
I agree with the first paragraph of the motion on providing the Backbench Business Committee with the formal power to hear representations from Members of the House in public. As my hon. Friend explained, this merely brings Standing Orders into line with the Committee’s existing practice. As a regular attender of its public meetings, I can say that they work very well. It is a real advance in this House for Back-Bench Members to be able to bid directly and openly for time to debate subjects of their choosing.
Turning to the rest of the motion, the House will be aware from the Backbench Business Committee’s evidence to the Procedure Committee and the Government’s response to that Committee’s report that we both oppose the proposals for a pro-rata increase in the number of days allocated to the Backbench Business Committee in a parliamentary Session lasting longer than a calendar year and for the Committee to have the power to table business motions. We have tabled amendments to remove these provisions, in support of the Committee’s stated views.
I listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the Chair of the Procedure Committee. While I understand the rationale behind the proposals, I do not believe that either is necessary. The first arose partly as a result of the unusually long first Session of this Parliament. We have now passed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which ties us, other than in exceptional circumstances, to five-year Parliaments with an election in early May. As a result, a spring-to-spring one-year Session should be the norm, and I do not expect a repeat of the two year Session. If there is one—one can never rule it out—or if a Session extends slightly beyond one year, I assure the House that business managers will take account of the interests of the Backbench Business Committee and the House to ensure a balanced spread of business.
In fact, that is what happened during that long first Session. The Government did not seek to stick to the Standing Order requirement of 35 days, but allocated the Backbench Business Committee 58 days, which was—contrary to the point made by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone)—well above what a simple pro rata increase would have delivered. Members may recall that it took several weeks at the start of the Session for the Backbench Business Committee to become established, during which time the Government provided time for debates that would otherwise have come from their allocation. That demonstrates, as the Chair of the Committee has said, that an element of flexibility is helpful to the House in the unlikely event of future long Sessions.
I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne will be able to accept those arguments and the Government amendment. Indeed, he has indicated as much. Should it come to a vote—although I understand that that will not be the case—I hope the House will support our position and that of the Backbench Business Committee and vote in favour of amendment (a), to leave out paragraph (2) of the motion.
On amendment (b) and business motions, I understand the case made by my hon. Friend but, again, the Government do not believe it is necessary to provide the Backbench Business Committee with the power to table business motions governing Back-Bench business days. There is already flexibility for the Committee to indicate on the Order Paper the amount of time it expects each debate to take. In these circumstances, as the Committee Chair has said, Members are generally very good at exercising restraint when necessary and respecting the interests of others wishing to speak in subsequent debates. The occupant of the Speaker’s Chair is also able to encourage Members to lengthen or shorten their speeches or even to impose formal time limits, having regard to the interest shown by Members in contributing to debates. That arrangement has worked very well. It provides maximum discretion for the Backbench Business Committee to organise the business as it sees fit and avoids the rigidity of a business motion.
The House may recall that there have been occasions nearer the start of the Parliament when the Government have provided a business motion at the request of the Procedure Committee and the Backbench Business Committee. It is also true that this Government have never refused a request for a business motion from either Committee. Furthermore, I can assure the House that we will continue to respond positively to similar requests from both Committees in the future.
Mr Jenkin
Has not my right hon. Friend defeated his own argument? If that is always going to be the case, why not let the Backbench Business Committee table the motions itself instead of having to ask his permission? Why does the Backbench Business Committee need to ask the Government’s permission for a business motion?
Tom Brake
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has heard from the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee why she is not seeking that power. The risk is that if it were available, Members would start to exercise it, which would do away with the flexibility she has said is such an advantage to the Committee.
The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee has already said in evidence to the inquiry that she does not think the power is necessary and she cannot see the problem. I agree with her. Again, I hope that, given my assurances and the views of the Committee Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne will accept the Government’s amendment—for the moment at least—until things move further and more quickly in the direction he seeks.
I will now turn to Select Committee launches and the motion standing in my name and those of the Leader of the House and the Chairs of the Liaison and the Backbench Business Committees. The motion provides for a new Standing Order governing the procedure relating to Select Committee statements. The Procedure Committee, in its second report of Session 2012-13, supported a new Standing Order for that purpose, an idea proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip when he was Leader of the House. I am sure he will be pleased that his good ideas continue to come to fruition.
Before briefly describing the effect of the motion, I would like to add that it has been tabled on the basis of much negotiation and discussion. I am grateful to the Chairs of the Liaison and the Backbench Business Committees for adding their names to the motion, signifying the degree of consensus achieved on it.
The Government agree that the present procedure, under which Members may contribute to the short debate by way of intervention only, is rather cumbersome. The launch of a Select Committee inquiry or report is more akin to a ministerial statement than a debate. It therefore makes sense for Members to be able to ask questions of the Member making the statement, rather than by seeking to intervene during a single speech. That will prove a more natural and convenient way of proceeding.
The proposed new Standing Order gives the Backbench Business Committee full discretion in allocating a specified amount of time to Select Committee statements, which can be set down on any of its allocated days. The Liaison Committee will enjoy a similar discretion in respect of its allocated days in Westminster Hall.
I want to respond to two points made by the hon. Member for Kettering. First, I want to reassure him that paragraph (1)(a) assumes that an application has been made by a Select Committee to the Backbench Business Committee for a statement, so the Backbench Business Committee cannot require one. I hope that he is reassured that the Backbench Business Committee will not force Select Committees to make statements that they do not intend to make.
Secondly, Select Committee launches can last any period determined by the Backbench Business Committee or the Liaison Committee, but they are not obliged to specify a time, and if they do not do so, the launch would be open-ended, and there would not be the constraining mechanism about which the hon. Gentleman expressed concern.
It is important that the House remains able to respond rapidly to new developments so as to be at the centre of political debate. That is why I believe that any Select Committee statements should be made no later than five sitting days after the day on which the report is published or inquiry announced, as provided in the Standing Order. I encourage Select Committees, wherever possible, to continue the current practice of launching reports on the day of publication.
The Select Committee statement provides Select Committees with an excellent opportunity to publicise their work either by launching their inquiries—that practice has found favour in the Scottish Parliament, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House found when he visited—or by explaining the contents of their reports to the House.
So far, 13 Committees have made a total of 14 statements. Committees now have the chance to ensure that their work becomes a staple feature of Back-Bench business, although they will have to compete with many other demands for time. No doubt Committees will wish to review how the new arrangements work in due course.
I hope that the House will find that the new Standing Order provides an improved procedure for this innovation. I welcome the support of the deputy shadow Leader of the House and that of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee on a common position with the Government on these issues this evening. I hope that the House will support that motion when I move it.
Mr Walker
This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I have learned a lot of procedure during its course, and it is good to know that, no matter how inexperienced we are, we can always become more experienced by listening to the wisdom of colleagues. If this is possible and acceptable to the House, I would ask to withdraw the motion on Back-Bench business—I understand that that is acceptable to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee—while of course leaving the motion on Select Committee statements alone. I have nothing further to add, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Amendments to Bills (Explanatory Statements)
Tom Brake Excerpts(10 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
The Government support the motion. I thank the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), for his thoughtful and charmingly concise opening comments, and for explaining to the House the reasoning and conclusions of his Committee. I will set out a little of the history that has led to this debate, although I am a little disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) did not do so. I will then explain why the House should support the motion and reject the amendment.
The report to which the motion refers was published by the Procedure Committee on 25 February 2013 and the motion appeared on the Order Paper before the summer recess, but consideration of this issue can be traced back to Modernisation Committee report in 2006 recommending that the Procedure Committee draw up a set of rules governing the tabling and publishing of explanatory statements on amendments to Bills on an optional basis during Committee stage. That followed evidence from the team on the Health Bill that was introduced in 2005, which said that such statements would help to ensure that
“when we are briefing our ministers and advising them how to respond, the issues the Member really wants debated are covered and we really are responding to the queries or concerns that are being raised.”
It is of assistance to Ministers, Members and the public if there is clarity about amendments, if debates are informed and if scrutiny is as effective as it can be.
Following the report, several pilots were conducted. Although the Procedure Committee concluded that explanatory statements were useful, take-up of the facility was disappointing. The overall assessment of the value of explanatory statements was inconclusive.
Following discussions in this Parliament between the Procedure Committee and the Leader of the House, it was decided that a further pilot should take place on two Bills, the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill and the Small Charitable Donations Bill. Criteria for evaluating the pilot were agreed and the Public Bill Office was tasked with preparing a memorandum evaluating the pilot. That was published as part of the Procedure Committee’s report, so I will not attempt to summarise it. The memorandum led the Procedure Committee to recommend a system of voluntary explanatory statements for all Bills at the Committee and Report stages. The Procedure Committee concluded:
“The evidence from the pilot suggests that there are few downsides to a permissive approach.”
I agree with that.
The amendment asks the House to resolve
“that explanatory statements on amendments be mandatory”.
After a playful intervention by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who moved the amendment, said that he was smirking in an irritating way. I know the hon. Gentleman well and he does not smirk in an irritating way. I would describe it more as an impish smirk. I accept that there is sense behind the amendment, particularly given the argument that it is easier to instil a cultural shift by making something mandatory and that a failing of previous pilots was the low take-up of the facility. However, I hope that I will be able to persuade supporters of the amendment not to press it to a vote, but to join those of us who want explanatory statements to become
“an accepted norm of the legislative process.”
The publication of explanatory statements will not guarantee that a Member understands the Bill. A Member who looks at the explanatory statements in isolation and does not have an understanding of the Bill will not be guaranteed to understand the amendments. If explanatory statements are published, it will require Members to read them to understand their implication. As the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) said, according to a statistic he has, seven out of 10 Members apparently vote without knowing what they are voting on. I am therefore not sure I have full confidence that if explanatory statements were put on a mandatory basis, each and every Member would read them and be fully informed about the purpose of the Bill.
There are good reasons to argue for a permissive approach, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for his support in that respect. The Procedure Committee argues that a mandatory requirement would restrict Opposition Back Benchers in tabling amendments. I am afraid I have to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—a gamekeeper turned poacher in this respect. He referred to Short money being available to the official Opposition. That is true, but he will remember that when we were in opposition, even with Short money, there was difficulty dealing with the volume of amendments. I am sure he will also acknowledge we are now in a coalition Government, and Short money is not available to the coalition partners. In fact, in many cases when one of the parties seeks to table an amendment, there is no support for that at all. I must therefore disagree with my hon. Friend, as I do with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who must acknowledge that simply producing explanatory notes is no guarantee that a Member of Parliament will read them—although clearly I hope that that would be the case.
It is accepted, I think, that the burden would fall heavily on Her Majesty’s official Opposition, who table a significant proportion of amendments. It is always best to proceed in this area of parliamentary reform on the basis of consensus. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, and others who support the amendment, do not want to proceed on the basis of consensus. Of all Members in this House I would have thought the hon. Lady favoured the idea of proceeding on that basis.
Should the House decide to go down the mandatory route in future, it would be free to do so, but it should be on the basis of a fuller consideration of the burden— perhaps with a further pilot on a mandatory basis—and full consideration of some issues not fully addressed in the report. Those could include, for example, whether an amendment would be refused for tabling by the Public Bill Office if it were not accompanied by an explanatory statement, or if that statement was felt to be in some way disorderly—that could certainly put the Public Bill Office in a difficult position. If explanatory statements were made mandatory, more thought would need to be given to what constitutes adequacy and accuracy in explanatory statements, and who would rule on such issues. Those issues could be considered by the House in the future, but it should not be left to the Chair to consider and rule on such procedural reforms in the way proposed by the amendment to today’s motion.
I am grateful to those in the Public Bill Office, in particular the Clerk of Legislation, for the assessment of the pilot, and for confirmation that they would be happy to consider further the issues we have discussed today if that is felt necessary. I am extremely grateful for the positive commitment they have made to assist all Members in preparing explanatory statements—the hon. Member for Broxbourne referred to the fact that he could hear them champing at the bit, and if we listen carefully I think we can hear them champing right now to assist Members in preparing explanatory statements. That commitment is noted in the motion before the House and will help encourage the facility to become part of the culture of the House.
As with the pilots, I expect Government Departments to play their role and actively participate in the new arrangements. Should the House agree the motion tonight, I expect the Government to table explanatory statements on amendments for Bills introduced to this House after 1 January 2014. The Cabinet Office will produce guidance for Departments on the issue, and I am happy to commit to deposit that in the Libraries of the House for the convenience of all Members.
I am sure Her Majesty’s official Opposition, with the assistance of the House authorities, will also up their game from the pilots. As the Procedure Committee said, a more widespread use of explanatory statements “should underline their utility”. I thank the Procedure Committee for its work on this issue. I urge colleagues not to press the amendment to a vote and for us to push forward on a consensual basis, and I commend the motion to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business of the House
Tom Brake Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Deputy Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is sorry to be absent again this week. He is recovering well at home following his back operation last week, and is confident that he will be in his place and carrying out his duties in the House next week.
The business for next week will be as follows.
Monday 28 October—I expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to update the House following the European Council. That will be followed by the Second Reading of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords], which will be followed by a motion to approve an instruction relating to the Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 29 October—Remaining stages of the Pensions Bill, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to reform of Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, followed by a motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill.
Wednesday 30 October—Opposition Day (9th allotted day). There will be a debate on education, followed by a debate on the future of the probation service. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
Thursday 31 October—Remaining stages of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill.
Friday 1 November—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 4 November will include the following.
Monday 4 November—Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.
Tuesday 5 November—Second Reading of the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Wednesday 6 November—Opposition Day (10th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion; subject to be announced.
Thursday 7 November—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee, followed by a general debate relating to the commemoration of the first world war.
Friday 8 November—Private Members’ Bills.
Colleagues will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will adjourn on the following dates during 2014.
The House will rise for the February recess at close of play on Thursday 13 February, and will return on Monday 24 February.
The House will rise for the Easter recess at close of play on Thursday 10 April, and will return on Monday 28 April.
The House will not sit on Monday 5 May.
The House will rise for the Whitsun recess on Thursday 22 May, and will return on Monday 2 June.
The House will rise for the summer recess on Tuesday 22 July, and will return on Monday 1 September.
The House will rise for the conference recess on Friday 12 September, subject to its agreeing future sitting dates for private Members’ Bills, and will return on Monday 13 October.
The House will rise for the November recess on Tuesday 11 November, and will return on Monday 17 November.
The House will rise for the Christmas recess on Thursday 18 December, and return on Monday 5 November 2015. [Laughter.] I mean Monday 5 January 2015.
Ms Eagle
I thought for a minute there that time had reversed and was going backwards, but the Deputy Leader of the House has put us straight. May I again pass on my best wishes for the speedy recovery of the Leader of the House? We hope to see him back in his place next week—no discourtesy is intended to the Deputy Leader of the House, who has filled in entirely, as we would have expected him to, with great aplomb.
May I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for giving us next week’s business and also next year’s recess dates, especially around the conference recess? I understand why the Scottish referendum has disrupted the usual arrangements but it does seem a bit strange that we have had to make changes to accommodate the 2014 Liberal Democrats conference. At the rate they are losing members, next year they could hold it in a telephone box over the weekend.
This business statement once again shows we are kicking our legislative heels in the Commons while the other place is yet again stuffed full of legislation. The Government still have to find time for us to discuss the Offender Rehabilitation Bill even though it completed its Lords stages months ago. It has now taken Labour to announce an Opposition day debate for the Government’s underhand privatisation of the probation service to be discussed at all. This is now the third time I have had to ask: can the Deputy Leader of the House confirm when this Bill will return to the Commons?
The Chancellor’s inadequate Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill has been substantially changed by last-minute amendments in the Lords, making it a very different and much longer Bill from the one we debated here originally. Given the importance of banking regulation to everybody’s living standards, will the Deputy Leader of the House now give us an assurance that sufficient time will be allocated to debate what will be essentially a very different piece of legislation when it finally returns to this place?
In the last two weeks, three of the big six energy firms have announced price rises of around 10%. To stand up to this abuse of market power, Labour will freeze prices until 2017, but the Government’s energy policy is in chaos. In opposition, the Prime Minister hugged huskies and pretended to be green, and only last year he was boasting that his green levies were bigger than ours, but last week his Back-Bench climate change deniers were agitating to abolish them, reducing bills by hitting the poorest hardest and abandoning energy efficiency altogether, and yesterday, in a blind panic, the Prime Minister announced that he had given in to them. The Deputy Prime Minister looked like he had swallowed a wasp, and Lib Dem spinners dismissed it as a “panicky U-turn” which will not be allowed to “dictate Government policy.” So I think we now know what the new Tory policy is, but can the Deputy Leader of the House tell us what the Government’s policy is?
Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister said we were living in
“some sort of Marxist universe” —[Official Report, 9 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 152.]
for suggesting a 20-month energy price freeze, and he said it was not possible to intervene in a market to set prices. This week, his Government signed a nuclear deal with the Chinese which sets prices not for 20 months, but for 35 years. On Tuesday Sir John Major announced his conversion to a windfall energy tax and worried about the silent have-nots who have to choose between heating and eating this winter. Meanwhile, No. 10’s advice to those who are cold was to wear a jumper. It speaks volumes when the Tory ex-Prime Minister responsible for the creation of the big six energy companies sounds more in touch than the current Prime Minister. So will the Deputy Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement to clarify Government policy on energy, and can we have a statement from the Prime Minister on whether he thinks Sir John Major is living in a Marxist universe too?
The Conservative party in the 1992 Parliament is remembered for being one of the most disloyal in its history, but I have been looking at the numbers and it turns out that the current crop of Government MPs are three times worse than they were then, and I think the Patronage Secretary’s expression says it all, because he has to deal with them. It sounds like the Prime Minister needs to listen to his predecessor not only on energy prices, but also on how to control his rebellious Back Benchers. While Sir John told them to put up or shut up, the current Prime Minister just caves in.
We know that for 39 out of the 40 months since the election prices have grown faster than wages. Will the Deputy Leader of the House now admit what we all know: that it was the Chancellor’s city bonus tax dodge that accounted for the surge in earnings in that one isolated month? So while living standards are falling bonuses are soaring, and the Chancellor creates a bonus tax loophole for his mates. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange for a statement from the Chancellor about why he prioritises his millionaire friends over tackling our cost of living crisis?
Last week, I asked the Deputy Leader of the House why he is campaigning against the closure of his local hospital, despite being in the Government responsible for it. Today, the Deputy Prime Minister will criticise the free schools policy, despite being in the Government responsible for it. I know that it was the final of “The Great British Bake Off” this week, but when will the Liberal Democrats realise that they cannot have their cake and eat it?
Tom Brake
Last week, the shadow Leader of the House asked what I am thinking when I am sitting alongside the Leader of the House. I must ask her today what the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) might be thinking as she sits alongside the shadow Leader of the House—she may be wondering whether it is vanity that has prevented the shadow Leader of the House from letting the hon. Lady who shadows me speak in questions, or perhaps the shadow Leader of the House was worried that her hon. Friend might outshine her at the Dispatch Box.
I am pleased that the shadow Leader of the House referred to the 2014 Liberal Democrat conference. I recommend that she attends, because I am sure that she would welcome the very open policy debates we have. She alleged that the Government were kicking their heels on legislation. As I read out, we are to debate pensions, high-speed rail and national insurance contributions—if she thinks those are minor issues, she needs to think again. She referred to the Offender Rehabilitation Bill and of course there will be an opportunity for it to be debated on the Opposition day she has provided. I reassure her that the Bill will be brought forward as soon as possible: as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The shadow Leader of the House referred again to Labour’s price freeze con. We all know that bills would go up before it, that the Leader of the Opposition has said that he could not guarantee things during the freeze if global prices went up and that the prices would go up afterwards. So we all know where that would lead. We had the nuclear statement at the beginning of the week, and I hope that she would have welcomed the fact that, finally, we are getting some investment in our energy industry. She may not be aware that over the next 10 to 15 years about 60% of our energy generation is going to be switched off as plants come to their end, so there was a need for the Government to take urgent action to address that. I would have thought that she would have welcomed that action.
Clearly we want to help families with the cost of living. The Government have introduced a number of measures that will do that: 25 million basic rate taxpayers are going to be £700 better off next year; we have capped rail fare rises; 3 million people will be taken out of paying income tax altogether; we stopped the 13p fuel duty rise that would have occurred under Labour; and we have capped the council tax. So this Government have a very proud record of tackling cost of living issues.
Finally, I would like to thank the shadow Leader of the House for again giving me the chance to mention at the Dispatch Box the save St Helier hospital campaign, which I am leading.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
May we have a debate on making better use of natural resources, particularly daylight? Is the Deputy Leader of the House aware that this weekend we are to undertake the flawed ritual of putting our clocks back by one hour, thereby plunging the UK into darkness by mid-afternoon? May we have the opportunity to examine the case for changing to British summer time and double summer time—putting our clocks forward an hour? That would make the afternoons lighter, it would reduce the number of road accidents and it would boost tourism.
Tom Brake
Clearly, we are all in favour of making better use of daylight. I know that the House has considered the issue on a number of occasions, and I am well aware of the arguments that my right hon. Friend is putting forward about the benefit that would be derived, particularly for the tourism industry and road safety. He may wish to consider raising the matter in a Westminster Hall Adjournment debate.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Would the acting Leader of the House agree that if we had a debate in the Chamber on the orchestrated campaign of intimidation against The Guardian, that would be an opportunity for some of us to point out that if it had not been for the Snowden disclosures, the monitoring of the German Chancellor’s mobile phone by US intelligence would not have been known? Surely the message about Snowden should be, “Let’s have more disclosures.” What The Guardian is publishing is undoubtedly in the national interest.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
During the summer recess, I met Stuart Wyatt, a constituent who suffers from multiple sclerosis. He told me that he and many others would like to use cannabis for medical reasons. Although I do not think that we should legalise cannabis at all, I do recognise that the pain of some who suffer from MS and other neurological conditions could be relieved by it. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the role of cannabis in relieving pain and how it could be given on prescription?
Tom Brake
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, which he has put in measured terms. I understand why he has put it on behalf of his constituent. He may be aware of Sativex, a cannabis-derived mouth spray licensed in the UK in 2010 as an additional treatment for moderate to severe spasticity in multiple sclerosis. He may also be aware that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is updating its clinical guideline on the management of MS in primary and secondary care. Sativex is one of the new interventions that NICE has identified for inclusion in its updated guidelines, which it expects to publish in October 2014.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
May I support the call made by the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on energy, so that the Government can clarify whether they are in favour of the warm homes programme, the renewable energy programme, Labour’s cap or John Major’s windfall tax? Those points need to be clarified. May we have that debate?
Tom Brake
Obviously, the Labour party has Opposition days that it could use to secure such a debate. Earlier there was a statement about the nuclear industry and in the course of a number of exchanges, including Prime Minister’s questions and Business, Innovation and Skills questions earlier today, we have made clear the Government’s position on energy and why we do not believe that what the Leader of the Opposition proposes is a sensible or feasible approach.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
It is a year since Paul Silk made recommendations for further fiscal devolution to the National Assembly for Wales. Why are we still waiting for the Government’s response to those recommendations? May we have a statement about the Government’s intentions and, better still, legislation?
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
On 26 May 2011, the then Health Secretary, whom we wish a speedy recovery, wrote to me about a decision by West Midlands strategic health authority to reduce nurse training. He replied that it believed that
“a reduction in commissions is necessary to avoid a significant oversupply in the nursing workforce.”
Last week it was revealed by Nursing Times that a massive one in three hospitals is going abroad actively to recruit new nurses. May we have an early statement so that the new Health Secretary can override his incompetent bureaucrats and expand nurse training opportunities for our desperate and deserving youngsters?
Tom Brake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question, and I will certainly draw the matter to the attention of the Leader of the House when he returns, as he may want to consider it further. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have provided an extra £12.7 billion of investment in the NHS. He may also be aware that 4,000 more clinical staff have gone into the NHS and that there are 23,000 fewer administrative staff. Specifically on the west midlands, however, I will ensure that the Health Secretary responds to him.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Last Saturday presidential elections were once again postponed in the Maldives when President Waheed and his puppet interim Government of the previous elected President refused to step aside. Will the Deputy Leader of the House make time for a debate so that MPs on both sides of the House can voice their support for free and fair elections in that country?
Tom Brake
The annulment of the first round of Maldivian elections held on 7 September, and the continued delay in holding new elections, are of concern to the Government and to the Foreign Secretary, as he made clear in a statement last week. It is important that elections take place to a timing specified by the Maldives elections commission and in accordance with the Maldives constitution. Ministers and officials are in touch with candidates and are strongly encouraging them to engage in a process that will deliver inclusive, free and fair elections, and a smooth transition of power. My hon. Friend may be aware that we have Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions on Tuesday when he could raise the matter again.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Britain has an enormous and ongoing trade deficit with the rest of the European Union, including a goods deficit of more than £1 billion a week, mainly with Germany. That is equivalent to 1 million exported jobs. The situation is conclusive evidence of a substantially misaligned exchange rate, so will the Deputy Leader of the House make Government time available for a full debate on the exchange rate?
Tom Brake
I am afraid that I cannot provide the hon. Gentleman with an opportunity to discuss that in Government time, but he might want to make representations to his party’s leadership about whether it could be the subject of an Opposition day debate. I know that he has strong views on the European Union, and I wonder whether he feels that coming out of the EU would help or hinder the trade deficit.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
In January 2012, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a wonderful speech about how to reconstruct an inclusive, just and popular capitalism. He called for a new co-operatives Bill, but that has not yet appeared. I cannot imagine that the Liberal Democrats are opposing it, but I cannot think of any other explanation, as the Secretary of State for Education and Cabinet Office Ministers have supported such a Bill. Will the Deputy Leader of the House see to it that time is provided to bring forward that important new Bill on co-operatives?
Tom Brake
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to raise that issue during today’s Business, Innovation and Skills questions, as that would have been a good opportunity to flag it up. However, I will ensure that he gets a written response to his very specific question.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
My constituents are getting angry and frustrated about the rocketing cost of High Speed 2. At a time when we are expecting winter weather and more flooding, may we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport on what he is doing to ensure that the line between Penzance and London is resilient in the face of floods and can be kept open beyond Exeter?
Tom Brake
I assure the hon. Lady that the cost controls around HS2 are very firm. This substantial and important project is going to provide the biggest boost to our rail network since the Victorian era. On the specific issue about her locality, the Government have set aside substantial investment to ensure that other projects around the country are delivered. She may wish to raise the matter at Transport questions on 7 November.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Could time be found for a debate on human rights in Russia, given that tomorrow marks the 10th anniversary of the imprisonment of Amnesty prisoner of conscience Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was imprisoned in a gulag in the Arctic circle for having the temerity to disagree with the President?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Minister for Europe issued a statement marking the 10-year anniversary of Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s arrest and met his son on 10 October to discuss the situation. The Government have significant concerns about the processes used to convict Khodorkovsky and continue to call for him to be released on schedule next August. The promotion and protection of human rights is a key priority in our bilateral relationship with Russia and we regularly raise it at all levels.
It may be appropriate to add that, since I announced the business statement, I have been informed of further business. On Thursday 31 October, there will be a debate in Westminster Hall on the oversight of the intelligence and security services.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary is very good at updating the House about the situation in the middle east. Yesterday, 300 al-Qaeda-affiliated prisoners organised an attempted break-out from the main prison in Sana’a in Yemen. When can we have a statement on what assistance we are giving to the Yemeni Government?
Tom Brake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that pertinent and timely question. I cannot guarantee that there will be time for a debate or a statement, but I will ensure that the Foreign Secretary hears his concerns and responds directly to him. He will also have an opportunity to raise the issue directly with the Foreign Secretary during Question Time next Tuesday.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
May we have a debate on charging by general practitioners? Vulnerable people in my constituency are being charged up to £130 by their GPs to provide medical information that is needed for Atos assessments. That is money they can sorely afford to spend and this important issue is affecting some of the most vulnerable in society, so may we please debate it?
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
May I challenge the Deputy Leader of the House to come back to the House some time in the near future and explain exactly how the Government are devising policy? Yesterday’s announcement by the Prime Minister on green measures and fuel prices caught everyone unawares. Today the Deputy Minister is making a speech about education and suggesting that we should regulate with regard to qualified teachers in our schools, but only last week the Minister for Schools signed off on cuts that could deregulate the oversight of qualified teachers. The Government’s approach, and not least that of the Liberal Democrats, seems to be inconsistent, so could we have an explanation of exactly what is going on?
Tom Brake
I will give the hon. Gentleman an explanation immediately. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that parents want and expect their children to be taught a core body of knowledge by good, qualified teachers or teachers seeking qualification—the quality of their teaching is checked by Ofsted—and to get a healthy meal every day. The Government believe that every child should have access to a good choice of excellent local schools. The hon. Gentleman may know that three quarters of free schools provide good or outstanding education, compared with just 64% in the public sector.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
I recently met my constituent Angela Lavelle, who suffered from breast cancer. She told me how chemotherapy affects eyesight, leading to a greater risk of cataracts, and the teeth, leading to problems of rapid decay, which results in the need for more frequent check-ups. Unless patients are in receipt of benefits or on a low income, they have to meet those extra costs. May we have a debate to discuss what help we can give these cancer sufferers?
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
On energy prices, may we have a debate or a statement in which we may raise the concerns of households that are off the gas grid and heavily dependant on home heating oil? That is a particular problem in rural areas and regions such as Northern Ireland, where 70% of households are dependent on home heating oil. The costs are extremely high and people are suffering in fuel poverty. Such a debate or statement would allow us to explore the help that is available for those households.
Tom Brake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for highlighting the significant issue of the additional fuel costs that are faced by those who are off the grid. Although I cannot assure him that there will be an opportunity to debate the matter, I will ensure that what he has said is passed on to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change so that my right hon. Friend can set out how we are helping those who are in the most difficult financial position of all.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
May we have a debate on reforming the Official Secrets Act? Breaches of the Act over the past decade in the Royal Navy and the Secret Intelligence Service have attracted only light custodial sentences. Is it not about time the Act was reformed to ensure that there is sufficient deterrent against treason in this country?
Tom Brake
I am not aware of any opportunities that there will be to raise that matter shortly, but the hon. Gentleman could apply for an Adjournment debate on the subject. If he feels that there is cross-party concern about the issue, he could also seek a debate from the Backbench Business Committee.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
May we have a comprehensive statement to the House about the health service in Shropshire? There is a debate about A and E services between Telford and Shrewsbury, which nobody in the county wants, and there is an emerging crisis in the ambulance service, particularly with regard to response times. May we have a comprehensive statement from the Government about those health services, because they are very important to people in Shropshire and particularly to those in Telford and Wrekin?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight his concerns about his local health service. He mentioned A and E and the ambulance service, and I am sure that he will welcome the fact that the Government are investing £250 million in each of the next two years to support those A and E departments that are under the most pressure. He may also welcome the fact that, for the first time, the Government have put in place measures to examine waiting times. I will ensure that a response is sent to him about the specific issues that he has raised about the health service in Shropshire.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
Last week, when I gently asked the Deputy Leader of the House about the forthcoming announcement on nuclear, he said that I would have to wait for the announcement. The announcement has now been made, so I will ask my question again. Bridgwater college is training the top engineers who will be needed to fulfil our promises not only, as somebody put it, to the Chinese and the French, but to the United Kingdom. Sedgemoor district council in my constituency must have a major part of the inward investment that the country needs to ensure that the supply chain for this enormous project is fulfilled. May we have time to discuss training, skills and inward investment for the United Kingdom in relation to the biggest infrastructure project that we have seen for a generation?
Tom Brake
The UK is determined to become a low-carbon economy, which is why our energy policy requires a mix of renewable, clean coal, gas and nuclear energy. As a result of the announcement on Monday, I am sure that the Government will want to work with employers and training providers to ensure that UK plc derives the maximum possible benefit. We believe that the nuclear industry is cost-competitive with other generation technologies. However, as the hon. Gentleman identified, we must ensure that we derive the maximum benefit from the project so that we can use those skills as the industry develops around the world.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On 18 April, I raised the issue of a fake internet jobs scam that was exposed by BBC Radio Humberside. Today, Radio Humberside has reported on another racket in which jobseekers are tricked into calling an expensive 070 phone number and completing a long questionnaire for a fake company called SB Millers, which is run by Sean Dixon of 33 Epsom road in London. Please may we have a debate on how we can stop these rackets that exploit desperate people who are looking for work and prosecute the criminals behind them?
Tom Brake
The hon. Lady rightly highlights that problem in the Chamber today and I hope that it will receive publicity to ensure that people are more widely aware of that scam. I am sure that she has raised the matter with her local trading standards officers to see what action they can take. Thanks to her, we are all aware of the potential problem, and I am sure we will all want to keep an eye out to ensure that our constituents are not affected in the way that hers have been.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
There has been an outrageous slur from the Opposition that Liberal Democrat Ministers are not supporting the Prime Minister. If we closed our eyes today, we could hear the Deputy Leader of the House sounding exactly like a Tory Minister. Just to ensure that there is no doubt, will he arrange for the Deputy Prime Minister to make a statement next week that he fully supports the Prime Minister’s desire to roll back green energy regulations?
Tom Brake
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to listen to the Deputy Prime Minister on LBC, but he might have found clarification on that point. Perhaps Mrs Bone had an opportunity to listen to that interview and will be able to report back to him. The coalition Government have made it clear that we are committed to being the greenest Government ever, and we will not do that at the expense of the environment or of jobs in the emerging industries. At the same time, however, we are aware of the pressures that people face due to their energy bills. That is why we have legislated, for instance, to ensure that people are offered the lowest tariff, and it is why we have measures in place to address the winter peak in fuel costs, with £135 available to 2 million people.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
As the Deputy Leader of the House has demonstrated, creative inventiveness has its place in parliamentary debate, but there is a time and place for everything, and it can be taken too far. In light of that, will it be possible to have a debate on the errors—inadvertent, of course—the misrepresentations, inadvertent, and the all-too-frequent inaccuracies, inadvertent, of the Prime Minister in his attempts to answer PMQs?
Tom Brake
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but there is clearly not such an opportunity beyond the Prime Minister’s weekly attendance at the Dispatch Box, when he puts across the Government’s position on matters of all natures forcefully and effectively. Of course, the Prime Minister is a more regular attendee at the House to make oral statements than his predecessor.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
May we have a debate on how we can continue to build on the legacy of the amazing London 2012? This Saturday, the next major international sporting tournament in this country, the rugby league world cup, will begin with Australia against England and Wales against Italy. Will the Government give it their full support? As a London MP, will the Deputy Leader of the House be going to the semi-final double header at Wembley on 23 November?
Tom Brake
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was offering me tickets for the game on the 23rd; if so, we can discuss it later. He is right about the rugby league world cup, which could well be the best attended ever. He is also right to highlight the importance of sport, which can tackle some of the health issues that we face and may be used to work with young people to help to build their leadership and team skills, as it is by Cricket for Change, an organisation in my constituency.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that Parliament and the parliamentary estate should be open to people of all backgrounds and to all our constituents, and that that should not depend on how wealthy or influential they are? Is he aware that the proposed massive increase in the cost of using rooms in the House and on the parliamentary estate will put many charities, third sector groups and small organisations off coming here to hold events? May we have an early debate on the chaotic management and running of this place?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and I think that he is sufficiently experienced to know that that is perhaps not a matter on which I can respond. We can both agree that we want the parliamentary estate to be as open as possible to anybody, but he will also be aware that at the same time Parliament is under a lot of pressure to ensure that it covers its costs. The commercial implications of such matters must therefore also be considered.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Last Saturday night and into Sunday morning, I went out on patrol with Humberside police officers, the excellent police and crime commissioner for Humberside, Matthew Grove, and the magnificent street angels into the streets of Cleethorpes to view the night-time economy. It became evident that a review of the current licensing laws is necessary. Will the Deputy Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on such matters?
Tom Brake
I am afraid that I am not in a position to announce time for such a debate. The hon. Gentleman might want to try to secure an Adjournment debate. I am sure that colleagues on both sides of the House will have strong views about their own nightlife and the impact of licensing laws on it. He rightly highlighted the work done by the street angels on his patch, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the street pastors in Sutton, who play a similar role.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Tomorrow is wear it pink day in aid of the Breast Cancer Campaign. LivinginBL, one of the excellent local newspapers in Bolton West, is organising many activities to raise money and awareness. Will the Deputy Leader of the House join me and many thousands of people throughout the country and wear it pink tomorrow?
Tom Brake
I hope to be able to help the hon. Lady. When I go home this evening, I will have to check what pink items there are in my wardrobe, and subject to there being a suitable pink tie, pink shirt or, indeed, pink wig, I might well be able to join her tomorrow. It is a fantastic campaign and I am sure that many MPs will have taken advantage of the photo opportunity provided, wearing pink glasses, pink wigs or other pink items. It is an effective way of drawing attention to an effective campaign.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
In the light of a recent conviction in my constituency for the mistreatment of horses, and alongside the Welsh Assembly’s recent proposals on the issue, may we have a debate on tackling fly grazing and the abandonment of horses, which sadly happen all too often in my constituency and across England and Wales?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He will be aware that that is an issue not just in rural areas but in urban and suburban areas such as mine, where horses are often left on local playing fields. I am afraid that I cannot provide any time immediately for that matter to be debated and I will have to refer him to the opportunities provided in Westminster Hall. If there is a greater appetite for such a debate, he could perhaps refer the matter to the Backbench Business Committee through cross-party representation.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
May we have a debate or statement on the Government’s discretionary housing payment policy? Since April, 1,307 households across the public and private rental sectors have applied to Redcar and Cleveland borough council for the discretionary housing payment. Only 358 households have been awarded it, not because eligibility criteria have not been met but because the fund is exhausted, which means that nearly three quarters of households will not receive anything. May we have a statement or debate on the policy, as families in my constituency are in dire straits as a result of this Government’s bedroom tax and other cost-of-living measures?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in response to concerns expressed by local authorities the Government made additional moneys available for the discretionary housing payment. I am sorry that on his patch the funds are, he says, exhausted, but I am aware that a number of other local authorities did not fully access the money made available to them. He will understand the reasons why the Government have proceeded with the changes to the spare room subsidy, and if he has concerns about the policy, we need to hear whether the Labour party would provide additional funding or simply deliver the same as the Government’s programme.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
We recently had the intolerable situation where a triple killer, who murdered his last victim while he was on the run from prison, was not given a whole-life tariff by the judge, because the judge said that that would breach a European Court of Human Rights ruling. I know the Deputy Leader of the House is on the wishy-washy wing of the coalition Government—quite a crowded wing—but will he arrange for a debate and a vote in this House, so that the House can make it clear that we expect judges to impose whole-life tariffs where they see fit, and ignore the views of the pseudo-sham judges at the European Court of Human Rights?
Tom Brake
I thank my hon. Friend for that, but I do not think I would describe myself as wishy-washy in any shape or form. I hope he will acknowledge that there is separation on this issue, and that Members of Parliament and the Government generally should be a little reluctant to interfere in decisions taken by judges.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
In contrast to the previous question, will the Deputy Leader of the House allow a debate on the state of prisons in England? He is probably aware that many inmates have completed their tariffs but cannot be released until they complete an offender behaviour programme, but waiting lists are currently more than five years long. Does he agree that it makes no economic or moral sense to keep people locked up who are eligible for release and incarcerated only because of a paucity of suitable courses?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that sensible question and for highlighting the state of prisons in England. That matter was raised during questions last week, and the Government rightly set out that the priority is safety and security in prisons. I agree, however, that if there are people who are in a position to be released but have no access to an offender behaviour programme, the matter needs to be addressed. I will ensure that the Ministry of Justice writes to the hon. Gentleman on that subject.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
One in six men in the country, and in this Chamber, will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during their lives—it is the single biggest killer of middle-aged men. With November looming, will the Deputy Leader of the House join me in expressing support for the Movember campaign? Movember was started by two patients, and has now raised more than £200 million and become the world’s biggest charity in the field. Will the Deputy Leader of the House signal his support and consider becoming a fellow Mo Bro, and can we have a debate in the House on the importance of male health awareness and the involvement of patients in research?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman may be alarmed to hear that I took part in Movember three years ago, but the general view of my trucker-style moustache was that it was best never seen again, and I am afraid that this year I will not be participating. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intends to sport a dramatic moustache—a Mexican moustache perhaps—during November, but I agree that Movember is a fantastic campaign that has caught people’s imagination. Men are not very comfortable talking about prostate cancer and their health in general, and the campaign has highlighted an issue that men of my age—and the hon. Gentleman’s age—need to be aware of and concerned about.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
May we have a debate on reducing VAT on energy bills? Every 1% reduction in VAT means £300 million saved for hard-pressed householders. Will my right hon. Friend lobby the Prime Minister to ensure that regaining control of our VAT rates is the No. 1 part of renegotiation on our relationship with the European Union?
Tom Brake
I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that under the EU directive covering VAT it would not currently be possible for VAT on gas and electricity supplies to be reduced below 5%. We know that rising energy prices are hitting many households hard at a difficult time, which is why in response to an earlier question I set out exactly what the Government are doing about the issue. The Government’s view is that the best way to keep everyone’s bills down is to help people save energy, and to ensure there are fair tariffs and to encourage competition, which is exactly what they are doing. If the Government were to pursue the approach that the hon. Gentleman suggests, they would also have to say where the extra money would come from to make up for the loss in VAT.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Has the Deputy Leader of the House seen the recent European Parliament ruling on e-cigarettes, which determines that an e-cigarette is not—I repeat not—a medicinal product? Given that the Government remain committed to increasing regulation in the UK, may we have a Department of Health statement on what action it will take to enable smokers who are looking to reduce their dependency on tobacco to continue to use e-cigarettes?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman is right to ask the Government to set out our position. We were disappointed that the European Commission’s proposal to regulate products including e-cigarettes as medicines was not supported by the European Parliament. The Government believe they need to be regulated as medicines. As he is aware, in the meantime licensed nicotine replacement therapies are available to help to reduce the harm of smoking to smokers and those around them, as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Care Quality Commission has raised concerns about maternity services in my local Medway hospital. May we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Health on Government policy on maternity services and what is being done to get more midwives into our hospitals?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for flagging up his concerns about his local hospital in Medway. He will be aware that the Government are taking action on midwives. He might also be aware that there is a record number of midwives in training. There will be 1,300 or so additional qualified midwives by the middle of this academic year in comparison with the beginning of the Parliament.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Earlier this month, the OECD published a report showing that young adults in England have among the lowest results in the industrialised world in international literacy and numeracy tests. The report showed that this is the only country in the survey in which results are going backwards, with higher numbers in the elder cohort than in the younger cohort. May we therefore have a debate on standards in schools, focusing on why such a high proportion of academies and free schools are classed as outstanding?
Tom Brake
Like the hon. Gentleman, I was quite depressed at what the report said on the progress young people are making. Clearly, literacy and numeracy are the foundations on which all further achievement in education depend, and are critical for work and everyday life. We need to do more work to raise the quality of English and maths throughout the country. Our reforms to schools and further education will improve the quality of the teaching work force, reward the best providers and ensure that learners are stretched to achieve the best they can. He might have heard the Minister for Schools set out in his statement last week exactly what we are doing to ensure that standards in all schools are improved.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Like most of my constituents in Kettering, I believe that if a foreign national commits a crime they should be sent back to their country of origin and banned from re-entering the UK. That very sensible policy platform is outlined in my Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the United Kingdom) Bill, which is scheduled for debate tomorrow. Are the Deputy Leader of the House and Her Majesty’s Government inclined to support that sensible policy?
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know my place; regrettably, you appear to know it, too. Be that as it may, may we have a debate on entrepreneurship? Tomorrow, I am meeting Tom Robinson, who at the age of 22 is one of Tamworth’s youngest entrepreneurs. He began by selling T-shirts from a market stall and is graduating to selling them from his first shop in the town centre. A debate would allow hon. Members to discuss what help we give and what more help we could give to young entrepreneurs such as Tom to help them to get their businesses off the ground.
Tom Brake
Clearly, we left the best question till last. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, Tom Robinson, on the effective entrepreneurship he is deploying to promote his business. From small things grow much larger businesses. The Government are clearly committed to helping entrepreneurs. We have made significant funds available—loans-wise—to young people who are setting up businesses. We are growing jobs in the private sector and have the largest number of businesses registered, and business confidence, construction, manufacturing and exports are all up. We are beginning to see the economy as a whole moving in the right direction.
Business of the House
Tom Brake Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 21 October—A general debate on the future of the BBC, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the state of natural capital in England and Wales. The subjects of both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 22 October—Second Reading of the Immigration Bill, followed by a debate on a reasoned opinion relating to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Wednesday 23 October—Opposition Day [8th allotted day]. There will be a debate on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland, followed by a debate on air passenger duty. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist Party.
Thursday 24 October—A debate on a motion relating to the Financial Conduct Authority’s redress scheme for the mis-selling of interest rate swap derivatives, followed by a general debate on aviation strategy. The subjects of both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 25 October—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 28 October will include the following:
Monday 28 October—Second Reading of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 29 October—Remaining stages of the Pensions Bill, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to reform of Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Wednesday 30 October—Opposition Day [9th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion; subject to be announced.
Thursday 31 October—Remaining stages of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill.
Friday 1 November—Private Members’ Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that the autumn statement will be made on Wednesday 4 December, and that the business in Westminster Hall on 24 October will be a debate on planning, housing supply and the countryside.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. I also send my best wishes to the Leader of the House as he recuperates from his minor operation.
Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who yesterday won the election to become Deputy Speaker. I hope that she will not mind my saying that it is unusual to see a Scottish Tory being elected. I am sure that I speak for many Labour Members when I say that it has certainly been an experience to be on the receiving end of the vote-gathering techniques of the Conservative party. We enjoyed welcoming all the candidates to a parliamentary Labour party hustings, and I am pleased to say that we managed to resist the temptation to set them a bushtucker trial.
Last week, I asked where the Offender Rehabilitation Bill (Lords) had disappeared to. I note that it is still missing. Will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm my suspicion that the Government are deliberately holding up the Bill so that they can privatise the probation service before they bring the Bill back to the House of Commons?
When the Government announced new plans for the funding of social care, they claimed that no elderly person would be forced to sell his or her home to pay for it. At the Tory party conference, the Health Secretary was at it again, promising
“for those who need residential care…We’ll stop them ever having to sell the home they have worked hard for all their life to pay for the cost of it.”
However, during the debate on the Care Bill in the other place, those grand ministerial claims have been exposed as empty PR posturing, and the truth has finally emerged: older people will be helped only if they have less than £23,000 in the bank. Given the huge disparity between the Health Secretary’s claims and the modest reality, will the Deputy Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement to be made?
It is a rare treat to face the Deputy Leader across the Dispatch Box. I often wonder what he is thinking when he is sitting next to the Leader of the House on Thursday mornings. I suppose that we are going to find out today. I am sure the Deputy Leader is aware, however, that for 39 of the 40 months for which the Government have been in power, prices have risen faster than wages. Labour’s promise to freeze energy bills until 2017 would be of real benefit to those who are struggling. What is the Government’s policy? The Tories want to scrap energy efficiency measures for the poorest in order to reduce bills, but the Deputy Prime Minister thinks that that would put prices up. What does the Deputy Leader think? We have heard only this morning that British Gas is going to increase its prices by nearly 10%. Is the Deputy Leader proud that the Government are arguing among themselves while the cost of living squeeze just gets worse? Would it not be easier to freeze energy bills?
Yesterday the Prime Minister could not clear up the confusion over his own policy on marriage tax breaks, which will benefit only one third of couples. The Deputy Prime Minister has made his opposition clear. So when this policy eventually comes to the House, will the Deputy Leader of the House and his party be voting against it, or will this just be another example of the Liberal Democrats saying one thing and doing another?
The Deputy Leader of the House will remember that before the last election he signed the National Union of Students pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees. I am sure he also remembers that just months after the election he was voting to treble them. I noted this week with interest that the Deputy Prime Minister has made another Lib Dem pledge on tuition fees: he has promised not to increase them to £16,000 a year. Will the Deputy Leader be signing up to that one, too, or has he learned his lesson? I am sure nothing will worry the hundreds of thousands of young people considering going to university more than another promise from the Liberal Democrats on tuition fees.
I understand that the Deputy Leader is heavily involved in his local save St Helier hospital campaign. In fact, he is so involved that the phone number and address on the campaign website is that of his own constituency office. To clear up any confusion, can the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that he is actually a part of the Government who are closing the hospital? Is there not a pattern of behaviour here: the Deputy Leader is campaigning against himself on St Helier, the Deputy Prime Minister is campaigning against himself on library closures forced by Government cuts in Sheffield, and now they are ready to sign up to a new pledge on tuition fees? The more they protest, the more we see right through them: you can’t trust the Liberal Democrats.
Tom Brake
May I start by thanking the shadow Leader of the House for her kind words, which I will pass on to the Leader of the House, who is recovering well? I am grateful to her for those remarks. I also echo her comments about the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who not only is a Scottish Tory who got elected, but who did so under the single transferable vote, which is clearly very welcome, too.
On the issue of the funding of social care, I am sure the hon. Lady will be aware that no decision has been taken on that, and the consultation is still open and if Members want to make a submission, they have until 25 October to do so.
We have just had a full hour of Department of Energy and Climate Change questions, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did a very good job of explaining why Labour’s policy of freezing energy prices is a con. In case the hon. Lady was not here to hear that, it is because prices will go up both before and after the freeze, and the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that if things changed globally during the freeze, he would not be in a position to hold prices down. That is why we do not support Labour’s position, but what the Government have done is maintain winter fuel payments, worth £300, cold weather payments of £25, and the warm home discount, which is worth £135. Indeed, more generally in relation to cost of living issues, under this Government 25 million basic rate taxpayers will be £700 better off next year, and 3 million people have been taken out of income tax entirely.
The hon. Lady mentioned the save St Helier hospital campaign. I thank her for promoting that and, of course, I am fully behind that campaign. It seems as though she is chiding me for running a campaign in support of my local hospital, something I will make sure Labour-inclined voters are aware of, but the important thing about the save St Helier campaign is that the review that has taken place was not conducted by politicians, but the proposals came from a team of clinicians and, on that team, St Helier hospital was under-represented, which is why we are campaigning against this. I am very pleased to be able to conclude my remarks on the subject of save St Helier hospital, because that is a campaign I intend to win.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Last week, the all-party group on excellence in the built environment, which I chair, published its report on the Government’s green deal for the domestic residential market. I was delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who is responsible for planning, attended the launch. May we have a debate on this issue, so that the Government can bring us all up to date on the progress they are making on the green deal and how better insulation in homes will help to reduce the number of families and individuals living in fuel poverty?
Tom Brake
I do not know whether my hon. Friend was able to be here for Energy questions earlier, but energy efficiency and the green deal came up then. Let me detail some of the specific things that the Government have done. In October 2012, the Department of Energy and Climate Change offered English local authorities the opportunity to bid for funding to reduce the extent of fuel poverty, and £31 million is now going into 60 projects involving just under 170 local authorities. Of course, we have the Warm Front scheme—it was closed in January for new applications but we are still processing others and measures are being taken on the back of that. In response to the shadow Leader of the House, I also set out the measures we are taking to support people who are in fuel poverty or are struggling to pay their bills with a range of initiatives, including the warm home discount, winter fuel payments and cold weather payments.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the debate next Wednesday on the fate of the Arctic Sunrise crew, who are still being held captive in Murmansk. It is nearly a month since the Russian authorities hijacked the boat and unlawfully detained and arrested the crew, including six Britons, three of whom are from Devon. They have now been charged with the ludicrous charge of piracy. May we have an urgent statement from a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister on what the British Government are doing to secure their release?
Tom Brake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, which raises a significant issue. Indeed, the Prime Minister responded to it yesterday in Prime Minister’s questions, because one of his constituents is also affected. The British Government have rightly made representations, and I want to see those people released as soon as possible.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Following its recent survey of businesses, the Hull and Humber chamber of commerce stated that
“the economic recovery in the Humber region is gathering pace”.
Constituencies such as mine contain a large proportion of low-income and middle-income households, and we need to ensure that they are the first to benefit from the recovery. Will the Deputy Leader of the House find time for a debate when these issues may be fully aired?
Tom Brake
Clearly, we want to ensure that those on low incomes and middle incomes benefit first from the recovery, and that is exactly what is happening in the tax measures we are introducing. I am pleased that my hon. Friend is detecting good news economically in his constituency. Some 1.4 million more people are in work today in the private sector than there were at the time of the general election. On a whole number of indicators things are moving in the right direction. There should be no room for complacency, but we are beginning to see very positive indicators in the economy generally.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
May we have an urgent debate on the ever-increasing cost of in-work benefits, given that it would appear that the taxpayer is having to subsidise employees of companies that are earning millions of pounds in profits? It is not about time that they paid decent wages and cut the welfare bill?
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
There is a great deal of concern about the protection of vulnerable children, so may we have a debate on how child protection services in Somerset, which were adjudged to be outstanding just five years ago, were last year judged to be inadequate, with Ofsted saying this year that there has been no improvement? Does it not show an astonishing failure of political leadership and management that Somerset county council, which does not face overwhelming demands on its social services, is now considered to be among the 17 worst local authorities in the country at protecting our children?
Tom Brake
May I say what a pleasure it is to respond to a question from my hon. Friend, who did such a good job as Deputy Leader of the House before me? The Government take any failure to deliver adequate children’s social care services very seriously. I recognise the challenges that local authorities can face in delivering strong child protection services, but it is right that Ofsted should identify weaknesses clearly and set out the areas where improvement is needed. I can assure him that Ministers are acting robustly to ensure that failure is turned around quickly and sustainably. In Somerset, that process has happened. Department for Education officials have met senior representatives from Somerset council and Ministers intend to issue the council with a notice to improve. Clearly, my hon. Friend’s strong concerns are now on the record, too.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
The earnings limit for carers allowance was last increased in April 2010. Carers in my Bridgend constituency tell me that if they work more than 16 hours on the national minimum wage, they will lose their carers allowance. Carers are critical to our economy; they provide a vital service and support to vulnerable people. Is it not wrong that they should be punished in this way? May we have a debate on how we can support carers and ensure that changes to the benefit system do not leave them worse off?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Lady for that question, because it gives me an opportunity to reinforce her point about the excellent work that carers do, which is acknowledged on both sides of the House. She has raised a specific issue about the earnings limit and I will ensure that her concerns are passed on to Ministers at the Department for Work and Pensions.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May we have a debate on the effect that decisions taken by one Government agency have on other Government Departments and on the public purse? Training for Travel in my constituency, which provides training for the travel industry, was days away from transferring its training providing business to another provider when the Skills Funding Agency told it that it was cancelling its training contract. The result is that that company is likely to fold, resulting in hundreds of thousands of pounds having to be paid out by other Government Departments in statutory redundancy and the like.
Tom Brake
The issue my hon. Friend raises is quite complex and I have a significantly complex reply that I could give him, but in the circumstances I think it would be better for me to ensure that he is written to. He might also want to raise the matter in Business, Innovation and Skills questions next week, if that is appropriate.
Mr Speaker
That is immensely considerate of the Deputy Leader of the House and we thank him for that.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May we have a debate or a statement about the regulations governing major retail developments in local areas? Late last night, I was contacted by residents on Melton road who were complaining bitterly about Sainsbury’s, which is trying to put up a huge store on the junction of Melton road and Troon way. The work goes on throughout the night. We are trying to make Leicester into the city of culture; Sainsbury’s is trying to make Leicester into the city of roadworks.
Tom Brake
There might be an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to raise the subject at Communities and Local Government questions on Monday and we will have a debate on Thursday on planning, housing supply and the countryside, and he might be able to raise the issue as part of the planning aspect.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
May we have a debate on restoring public trust in the police? Is it not the case that David Shaw, the chief constable of West Mercia police, should take immediate and appropriate action against the officer implicated in lying against my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)?
Tom Brake
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and I am sure that he will have heard the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister state their position. The behaviour was unacceptable and action would be appropriate, but clearly that is something for the Crown Prosecution Service and others to consider, rather than Ministers.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Has the Deputy Leader of the House seen this week’s article in The Economist, which referred to towns such as Hartlepool, Hull, Middlesbrough and Wolverhampton as “rustbelt Britain” and urged the Government to ignore and abandon them? May we have a debate on the issue so that we can reject that ridiculous notion and highlight the promise and potential of my area, or would such a debate merely confirm that the Government have already abandoned areas such as Hartlepool?
Tom Brake
I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter on which there is agreement. No one wants to abandon any towns or cities, and that is why the Government have invested as heavily as we have in the regional growth fund to ensure that jobs in the private sector are there. We want to work constructively with him on that issue.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
May we have a debate on the factors that lead to business investment and job creation? Honeytop Speciality Foods in my constituency has already exported naan bread to India. It is creating 200 extra jobs this month, and it has turned Dunstable into the crumpet capital of the United Kingdom. But it gets even better. I have now learned of an extra £22 million investment to produce the fastest burger bun plant in the whole of Europe. Is it not critical that we have this type of investment across the whole of the United Kingdom?
Tom Brake
I am aware that the hon. Gentleman raised the same issue last week. He will remember that the Leader of the House promised to go and sample a crumpet if he was in his constituency. Last night I was at a planning meeting at my local authority to support strong local opposition to the opening of a fast-food restaurant, so it would be hypocritical of me to offer to come and eat a burger with the hon. Gentleman. However, he has put on record the fact that substantial, welcome investment is going into his constituency, which I am sure will create lots of jobs, building on what the Government have already achieved—the 1.4 million jobs that we have helped to create in the private sector.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The prison population is approaching record highs and the numbers of prison staff are approaching record lows, and that is causing prison staff up and down the country to have great health and safety concerns. The situation has been described as a powder keg. May we have a debate on how we approach safety and health for prison staff before we as politicians suffer greatly as a result of a tragic incident that is waiting to happen in the Prison Service?
Tom Brake
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on drawing attention to that. Clearly, we all want our prisons to be safe environments both for prison staff and for prisoners. He has made a specific request about staffing levels and the impact on health and safety, and I will ensure that a written response is sent to him.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Far too often, constituents of mine end up in destitution when their claim for employment and support allowance ends. Whereas they qualify for jobseeker’s allowance or income support, such a claim is not put in place. Will the Government introduce a motion to authorise the Department of Work and Pensions to institute automatically a claim in appropriate circumstances while the legislative environment is resolved?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to take time this week to read the article that I published in The House magazine this week about how we treat the people who work in this Parliament of ours? Most of our constituents and certainly mine in Huddersfield believe that this place should be a beacon of good treatment of people at work. Zero-hours contracts, no contracts and short-term contracts dominate this House now and it is about time we put our shop right. Let us lead; let us be a beacon. Let us treat our staff well.
Tom Brake
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was able to speak in the Opposition day debate on that very subject yesterday. If he did, he will have heard the Minister’s response. I agree with him that we should be an exemplar in terms of how we treat people who work in this place. I will endeavour in the next few hours to track down a copy of The House magazine so that I can read his article.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Over the past five years QinetiQ in Boscombe Down in my constituency has doubled the number of new graduate trainees and apprentices that it employs. It has also set up the 5% campaign to challenge other companies to aim for 5% of their work force being drawn from apprentices and new graduate trainees. Will the Deputy Leader of the House make time for a statement on how the Government can encourage this worthwhile campaign?
Tom Brake
My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the importance of employers taking on graduates and apprentices. He will be aware that we have created a million extra apprenticeships, which is beginning to have a real effect. I am sure that in the contacts that both he and I have with employers, they underline how much added value apprentices bring to their company. So he has helped publicise this today, and I am sure that all Members will want to do so in the contacts that they have with employers.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
The Deputy Leader of the House said that he was in the Chamber for Energy questions. He will have heard me tell the House that Grangemouth oil refinery and chemicals is shut down until further notice. It is not only the first time that there has been a full, cold shutdown of that plant, which represents 10% of the Scottish economy, in the 21 years that I have represented the town, but it is the first time since I first worked there as a student in 1967. The replies from the Energy Minister were all about securing supply and everyone getting supplies. May we have a statement from the Business Secretary and a debate in the Chamber about the fact that planning clearly went into this so that the company, which is owned by one man and two others but mainly by one man, who may be the equivalent of a Russian oligarch and may have been involved in collusion with this Government to store up supplies so that he could take on the work force and break them because he wants to take £50 million out of the terms and conditions of employment of the people on that site, so we need a debate on collusion—
Tom Brake
The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) has put on record his concerns for a second time. I will not repeat some of the language that he used, but clearly from the Government’s perspective we would encourage the employers and the unions to work together to ensure that the matter is resolved. If he feels as strongly about the issue as he clearly does, there will be an opportunity for him to raise it again next Thursday during questions to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The editor of The Guardian recently boasted online that he was “taking precautions” to prevent UK security services from having access to the files of vital national security information that he had sent outwith the remit of the UK courts to The New York Times. Security sources are still trying to decrypt these files, which The Independent described as “highly detailed” and a “threat to national security”. May we have a statement to reassure the House that The Guardian will be asked for a decryption key and if none is forthcoming, action will be taken?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman has been successful in securing a debate on Tuesday next week, when I am sure he will get a much more detailed response to his concerns than I am able to give him. Clearly, he is right that intelligence leaks are causing serious damage to the UK’s national security. The Government have a duty to protect national security and should make it clear to media organisations that publishing highly classified material damages our ability to protect this country. Journalists are not in a position to make national security assessments on what should or should not be published. As he will be aware, however, it is a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to determine whether a crime has been committed and what action should be taken as a result. As I said, he will have an opportunity on Tuesday to raise these matters in detail.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
In view of what we have just heard and what was said by the Prime Minister yesterday, by the Home Secretary before the Home Affairs Committee and by the head of MI5, is the Deputy Leader of the House aware that many of us believe that what is happening at present are threats and smears against The Guardian for publishing details, which is not in any way a threat to the security of our country, but information which the public have a right to know? As the Liberal Democrats are supposed to be ardent defenders of our civil liberties, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will bear it in mind that it would be useful to have an overall debate on intelligence and security matters and not just leave it to the Committee which meets in private session.
Tom Brake
I will not restate what I have said, but the Government clearly have a duty to protect our national security. If a newspaper—whichever one—is in the business of publishing information that damages our national security or circulating information that has the potential to do so, the Government are required to respond. If that newspaper publishes information on certain matters that have no relevance to national security, clearly we want them to be able to do so.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
In the next few days we will hear an announcement on the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, which is obviously vital to UK plc. The Government will no doubt make a statement to that effect, which will be welcome, but may we have a debate in the Chamber to consider it more closely, because of the importance to skills and inward investment and what it will mean for UK plc over the next 100 years?
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
May we have a statement on the Government’s support for traditional music, as this year Wingates brass band is celebrating its 140th anniversary? On 26 October it will hold a concert at which two new specially written pieces will be introduced, as well as the launch of “From Bible Class to World Class”, a book about its history. Will the Deputy Leader of the House join me in congratulating Wingates brass band on that fantastic achievement?
Tom Brake
I join the hon. Lady in congratulating that musical ensemble. I am afraid that my briefing pack, although extensive, did not run to traditional music, but she has put the matter on the record and I am sure that in future all Members will want to know more about that important subject.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
The Commission on Human Medicines has today recommended that schools should be permitted to keep an asthma inhaler for general use for when children who do not have recourse to their own inhaler suffer an attack, which Members will be shocked to learn is currently against the regulations. May we please have a debate on support for children in our schools who suffer from chronic conditions such as asthma?
Tom Brake
I congratulate the hon. Lady on campaigning on the matter. The Government are grateful to the Commission on Human Medicines for its recommendation and intend to act on it. We will consult on changing the regulations to allow schools, if they so wish, to hold a spare asthma inhaler for emergencies and to develop appropriate protocols for their staff to ensure its safe and proper use. She will have opportunities on Monday, during Communities and Local Government questions, and on Tuesday, during Health questions, to raise the matter of schools and health.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
We already know that accident and emergency departments in the north-east are to receive no extra funding this winter, but this week we learnt that the South Tees clinical commissioning group’s per-head funding is to be cut significantly, alongside other north-east CCGs. Following that, Monitor indicated that it will be investigating South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust for a persistent failure to meet targets on waiting times, and on clostridium difficile and for a rise in never events. May we have a debate in the House in Government time about NHS funding for the north-east?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I do not have the specific figures about north-east funding in front of me, but he will be aware that the Government have committed an extra £12.7 billion to the NHS, in contrast with Opposition Front Benchers, who I think described that proposal as “irresponsible”. The level of funding going into the NHS is very significant. On A and E and NHS waiting times, average waiting times remain low and stable. The number of patients who have been waiting longer than 52 weeks is 352—clearly that is 352 too many—but that compares with a total of 18,458 at the end of May 2010, when his party left power.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Ellen, a year 11 student from my part of Somerset, wrote to me about the cancellation of her GCSE maths exam in November, having heard about it not through her school nor through Parliament but through the Sunday papers. May we have a debate to consider the method of communicating such changes, which Ellen says causes confusion, distress, upset and anger, and to see whether it would be preferable and more sensible for changes to apply only to students who started studying for their exams last month rather than making dramatic changes for those like Ellen who, since 2009, had planned her work with her teachers for an exam next month?
Tom Brake
I do not know whether my hon. Friend was able to be in the Chamber on Monday when the Minister for Schools made a statement about standards; she may find that pertinent to the issue. She has raised a specific point about which I will ensure that the Department for Education writes to her.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
My constituents continue to suffer from cold calling by claims management companies. Will the Deputy Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Justice to make a statement to this House on the performance of his Department in regulating those companies, including looking at whether to transfer that responsibility to the Financial Conduct Authority?
Tom Brake
I am sure that every Member in the Chamber has sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point. These calls are persistent and an irritant, and we need to ensure that, as far as possible, the matter is addressed. He asked for the Secretary of State for Justice to respond to the issue. I will make sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of his concerns and writes to him about the matter.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
May we have a debate on local authorities’ winter highways maintenance preparedness?
Tom Brake
I am sure that we are all hoping our local authorities will be getting in the appropriate levels of salt and sand to ensure that we have, as far as possible, an accident-free winter. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that the Department for Transport continues to liaise with local and national partners to improve winter resilience so that this country enters the forthcoming winter season well prepared. A national strategic salt reserve of no less than 425,000 tonnes is going to be brought to bear on this issue. If he wanted to raise specific issues about local authorities, he could do so on Monday at Communities and Local Government questions.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 589, which deals with lower taxes for lower earners?
[That this House welcomes the Government taking 2.2 million people out of income tax so far by increasing the personal allowance threshold; further welcomes the Government raising the income tax threshold even further to £10,000 in 2015; notes that the Government is committed to helping the low paid with the cost of living by lowering taxes so that they can keep more of their own money; further notes that the National Insurance threshold remains at £7,748; and therefore urges the Government to examine the possibilities of increasing the threshold for National Insurance in the long term to help low earners with the cost of living.]
My right hon. Friend mentioned earlier the fact that our Conservative Chancellor has cut taxes for 20 million lower earners in our country. May we have a debate on whether we can help lower earners still further by raising the threshold for national insurance?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is a doughty campaigner on many issues and has had great success with some of them. I am pleased that the issues he mentions are very much on the Government’s agenda. Once we have hit the threshold to allow people to earn £10,000 before they pay any income tax, the Liberal Democrats would like to push the matter further, and the Government as a whole might like to do so as well. He raises the specific issue of national insurance contributions, and I am sure that he would support the Government’s initiative to reduce those in relation to employers. I can assure him that I have just read his early-day motion, and fantastic it is too.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Deputy Leader of the House is demonstrating that he could be Leader of the House by filling in for him today. Could this be extended so that other deputies could take over for a day? Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could take over for a day; may I suggest 1 April?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman. It was all going so well until the last phrase. In fact, I misheard it so I will just stick with the first part. I think it is entirely appropriate for deputies to take over on the occasions when they are required to do so. I was rather expecting my shadow, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), to take over for today as well; I am not quite sure what happened there.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Today is international credit union day and the Bishop of Stafford is opening in a Stafford department store a branch of the Staffordshire credit union, with which I have an account. Could we have a debate on how credit unions can provide viable and excellent competition against payday lenders and other forms of credit on the high street?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Perhaps I should declare an interest as a member of the Croydon, Sutton and Merton credit union. Clearly, there is real potential for credit unions to enter the market and provide people with loans at low rates of interest and to make a sustainable contribution. I am sure that Members of all parties are interested in the subject of credit unions, so the hon. Gentleman may want to consider making representations to the Backbench Business Committee through an all-party delegation.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Data published yesterday show that my Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency is one of the top three in the country for falling unemployment, with particularly encouraging falls of more than 40% year on year for both long-term unemployment and 18 to 24-year-old claimants. Could we have a debate on job creation, in order to explore not just that positive news, but how we can accelerate growth and ensure that it is spread around the country?
Tom Brake
I would welcome such a debate. I am pleased for the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that there has been a significant drop in unemployment in his constituency, which is something that is being replicated to a greater or lesser extent around the whole country. Employment is up, unemployment is down and youth unemployment is slightly down. Clearly, there are still many issues that we need to address and the debate suggested by the hon. Gentleman might give the Government the opportunity to focus on youth unemployment, on which we could make even more progress.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
For some time I have been in correspondence with the Foreign Office on the unacceptable and illegal discrimination faced by UK and other foreign national lecturers in Italy. Despite repeated attempts to get the European Commission to act and intervene, no action has been taken and the Commission is now looking to close the file. Could we therefore have an important debate on this clear and systemic breach by Italy of the free movement of workers within the European Union, and its discrimination against them, and the failings of the European Commission to act on it?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman is right. This is a serious issue and it is the Government’s view that the discrimination faced by UK and foreign national lecturers in Italy is not only unacceptable, but illegal. We have been pressing the Italian authorities to find a solution and the hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Minister for Universities and Science met the Italian Education Minister on 5 October and raised the problems faced by foreign lecturers working in Italy. He received assurances that the Italians are actively looking into a solution over the next year.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
May we have a debate on what I think is the case that someone from my constituency of Beckenham who happens to be a Scotsman and wants to go to university in Scotland has to pay tuition fees, whereas someone who lives in Scotland who happens to be an Englishman does not and someone who comes from France, Germany, Italy or Spain does not, either? It seems extraordinary.
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman is right. He will be aware that higher education is a devolved matter for Scotland and that under EU law member states cannot discriminate on grounds of nationality against people from other member states in the conditions of access to vocational training, which includes higher education. Where certain residency and nationality conditions are met, EU nationals and their family members will qualify for home fee status and will therefore be treated the same with regard to tuition fees as UK nationals who also satisfy the residency conditions.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), I welcome the drop in unemployment in my constituency of Mid Derbyshire. I visited the local A4e last week, which is very successful at getting more than 100 long-term unemployed people a month into employment, but I was told that its biggest problem related to those with mental illness. May we have a debate on how we can further help people with mental illness who are long-term unemployed?
Tom Brake
The hon. Lady is right that organisations that are seeking to address long-term unemployment are coming across people with substantial challenges such as mental health issues and drug or alcohol addiction. The Government are committed to assisting them through various work programmes. She has made a pertinent point that requires a written response. She may be interested to know that I am meeting Rethink Mental Illness later today to talk about the sorts of issues that she has raised.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
A few months ago, the Secretary of State for Health rightly made a statement to announce the suspension of the Safe and Sustainable review into children’s heart surgery after the Independent Reconfiguration Panel found that it had been flawed and biased. It seems that the same thing may be happening again. May we have another statement on the composition of the clinical reference group because three of its four members established a position in 2010 on what should happen? One of them, Anne Keatley-Clarke, the chief executive of the Children’s Heart Federation, has behaved in a thoroughly unprofessional manner. The Independent Reconfiguration Panel described her charity’s role as
“a source of unhelpful divisiveness”.
May we have a statement so that we can discover why a supposedly neutral body is being set up in such a biased way?
Tom Brake
I am afraid that I cannot guarantee my hon. Friend a statement, but I can offer him the opportunity to raise the matter at Health questions on Tuesday. He has made serious allegations about the composition of the clinical reference group and it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State for Health to respond.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
Principled employment agencies throughout the United Kingdom are suffering and some are closing because of the practices of unprincipled employment agencies, which exploit staff by underpaying them and incorporating expenses into their remuneration, thereby undercutting the principled agencies that pay people properly. May we have a debate on how the rules could be changed to stop that unfair practice?
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
As the Deputy Leader of the House knows, the Government are planning to introduce a hybrid Bill into the House before the end of the year on the vexed subject of High Speed 2. It will be accompanied by an environmental statement that contains more than 50,000 pages of information. On the day on which it is laid, the Government’s consultation period will commence. It is rumoured that it will be only eight weeks long and will take place over the Christmas period. Will he grant a debate on the efficiency and effectiveness of the consultation periods that are being allowed by the Government, to ensure in particular that my constituents and other people who will be affected along the line have a decent time to reply to what will be one of the largest environmental statements in history?
Tom Brake
Again, I am not in a position to guarantee such a debate. However, my right hon. Friend will be aware that the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill will be debated in this place on Thursday 31 October and she may have an opportunity to raise those issues during that debate. She will also be aware that there have been many legal challenges to what the Government are doing on this issue, but that overwhelmingly the Government have been successful in overturning them.
Speaker’s Statement
Tom Brake Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we proceed to the next Opposition day debate, I am now in a position to announce the result of the election of a Deputy Speaker, following the ballot held today.
Five hundred and fifty-one votes were cast, with no spoilt ballot papers. The counting went to six stages. Five hundred and thirteen valid votes were cast in that round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 257 votes. The person elected First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means with 273 votes is Mrs Eleanor Laing. The other candidate in that round was Mr Brian Binley, who received 240 votes.
Eleanor Laing will take up her post immediately. I congratulate the hon. Lady warmly and I may say on behalf of my colleagues and myself that we all greatly look forward to working with her. In the process I should like, on behalf, I am sure, of the whole House, to thank all the candidates for participating in this election and for a contest which showed the House at its best.
Mr Speaker
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s typically gracious words. What she said by way of tribute to the staff of the House, who are always exemplary in professionalism, discretion and efficiency, will have been noted, in particular.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to echo the comments of the Deputy Leader of the House. The hon. Member for Epping Forest has a strong record in political and constitutional reform and will make a very good Deputy Speaker.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Tom Brake Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hughes
I made it clear that because this is the second and last day on Report and because we must have Third Reading, at this round of our deliberations we cannot do that in this building. Other work is taking place, however, not least in the Joint Committee on which I serve with colleagues from both Houses. We want to report in time for our work to be taken into account up the corridor in the House of Lords. Any amendments made in the Lords must still come back to this place, so I ask the Government to give time for the Committees that are working and have not reported to report and for those reports to be considered by the Government in good time to be seen by colleagues in the Lords and for the independent commission to report and to be seen, provided it gets on with the job quickly.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
Before I tackle new clauses 2 and 3 and the amendments, I welcome the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) to his place. I am not sure whether this is his last appearance in his current position—
Tom Brake
Okay. I also welcome the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who is making his first appearance in this capacity, as well as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who is staying put, I believe. This is also perhaps the first opportunity for me to welcome the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). He might be familiar with a quote from Christopher Hitchens:
“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
He might have found during the debate that a lot is being asserted by Opposition Members without evidence. Clearly, the Government dismiss that with evidence rather than without it.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly made an enticing offer that we should pause the Bill, but I am afraid that I shall have to decline. I can only imagine the hue and cry from Labour were we to do nothing with the Bill only for someone to spend just under £1 million in one constituency or another during the run-up to the next general election to try to unseat a candidate they did not want to support. Would the hon. Gentleman then accuse us of failing to take action?
We have also heard some examples of Opposition Members’ belief that the Bill would have stopped updated health and safety provisions in relation to mining disasters. We heard from the Chair of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform that the Labour party would not have existed had the Bill been in place. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will become familiar with such arguments, which are completely outwith anything the Government propose in the Bill.
New clause 2 would require the Government and the Electoral Commission to undertake a post-legislative assessment of the impact of part 2 on third parties campaigning in elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly and on third parties campaigning in Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland constituencies for the UK parliamentary elections. That assessment would also have to consider the impact of part 2 on referendums in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Part 2 would not come into force until a report of the assessment was laid before Parliament.
Only some of the part 2 provisions apply to third parties campaigning in elections to the devolved Administrations. At the time of the Bill’s introduction, the Government published an impact assessment to accompany it. The analysis has been thorough. To require the Government to undertake another analysis at a later date serves no purpose. In addition, the Electoral Commission already has a statutory function of reporting on the conduct of elections under current legislation. As part of that function, the Government would expect the commission to examine the impact of changes to rules on third-party campaigning at future elections. It would not be for the Government to duplicate the role of the independent regulator.
The main thrust of the remarks of the hon. Member for Caerphilly was about the potential risk of impact on the Scottish referendum. I want to make it clear that the Bill does not have an impact on referendums. Although the regulated period for the 2015 UK parliamentary election will overlap with the regulated period for the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, spending in the Scottish referendum is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Such expenditure could not, in our view, reasonably be regarded as intended to promote electoral success and would therefore not be controlled under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 or regulated by the Bill. We believe that expenditure incurred during the regulated period for the referendum would be treated as referendum expenditure and not controlled expenditure for the election, unless there was a clear or direct link to a campaign in the election. We do not think that the commencement of part 2 should be delayed as the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr Allen
Up until yesterday, the Electoral Commission, which is charged by Government and the House in these matters, was still stating:
“We await confirmation of the Government’s view of the impact of the Bill on the referendum on independence for Scotland.”
So even yesterday, the Electoral Commission was unclear. The Minister is stating unequivocally that there will be no impact whatsoever on the contending parties—those that support voting yes, voting no or whatever—and there will be no impact whatsoever on the independence campaign by any of the players or third parties. This was not made clear to the Electoral Commission even yesterday, when the question arose.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which gives me an opportunity to restate the fact that the Bill has no impact on the Scottish referendum. The Electoral Commission wanted that clarified, and I have today very publicly done so. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had clarified that point in discussions with the Electoral Commission yesterday.
Wayne David
Surely, the comment from the Deputy Leader of the House depends on clearly differentiating expenditure for election campaigning and referendum campaigning. We might find that sums of money are used for identical purposes at the same time. Common sense dictates that that is bound to lead to complications.
Tom Brake
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House in 1999 when PPERA was being debated and when it became an Act in 2000. That Act seeks to address that sort of issue. Our position is clear. I do not think that I need to restate it a third time, but I will: the Scottish referendum is not affected in any way by what we are debating here.
I shall move on to new clause 3, which would require the Electoral Commission to identify the Bill’s impact on both its own resources and on third parties. It would require the commission to lay a full cost projection before Parliament within one month of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. As I have just explained, the Government have already published an impact assessment to accompany the Bill. That assessment considers the impact on both the Electoral Commission and third parties. The assessment estimates that the lowered registration thresholds will bring 30 more third parties into the regime administered by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—that is, third parties that campaign for the electoral success of a party or candidate.
The assessment also estimates that only 10% of third-party organisations will see their expenditure affected by the reduced spending limits proposed in the Bill. At the 2010 UK general election, only two organisations even passed the lower limits proposed in the Bill. There will be a relatively small administrative cost to each registered third party as a result of the new reporting provisions that the Bill introduces. The impact assessment considers that the enforcement cost to the Electoral Commission will rise by a maximum of £390,000 annually. Let me say again that this analysis is comprehensive, and I see no need to repeat it after the Bill has received Royal Assent.
The Electoral Commission states in its parliamentary briefing:
“We do not support this amendment since there are more appropriate vehicles for consideration of these issues.”
The Electoral Commission is already required, under PPERA, to submit an estimate of its income and expenditure to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission each financial year. That estimate must indicate what the commission considers its requirements for resources for the next five-year period might be. There is therefore already provision in legislation for the commission to provide the information that the amendment seeks.
Tom Brake
I am afraid I am going to disappoint the hon. Gentleman by restating what I have said. We have already carried out an impact assessment and the Electoral Commission will no doubt want to conduct one on the impact of third parties.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) referred to amendment 65. I can assure him that the Government will listen to the Committee’s views, although we are working to a timetable that requires the Bill to be in place to address the next general election, and the regulated period for that starts 12 months before. We will of course listen to the Committee’s views and to the views expressed by others, including the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Electoral Commission or anyone else who has views on the subject. We are not closed to other views.
Angela Smith
Is the Deputy Leader of the House therefore saying that he and the Government will listen to the views of the Committee and the independent commission before the Bill goes to the House of Lords?
Tom Brake
No. The hon. Lady paraphrases me incorrectly. That is not what I said. I said that we would listen to the views, but at the same time we are working to a timetable. The sooner those views are available the better, and the sooner there will be an opportunity for them to be considered.
Amendment 65 would amend clause 41 in order to prevent part 2 from coming into force until a Committee of either House has undertaken an inquiry and published a report on the impact of the Bill. As drafted, however, the amendment does not in fact require an inquiry to take place—it merely assumes that one might. The amendment’s effectiveness is therefore limited, as in the absence of any inquiry part 2 will come into force regardless. I once more reiterate my earlier comments: the Government have already published an impact assessment to accompany the Bill. That assessment considers the impact on both the Electoral Commission and third parties, and is thorough.
Amendments 66, 4, 5 and 6, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) spoke, would amend clause 41 so that the entire provisions of part 2 came into force on Royal Assent, subject of course to the transitional provision in clause 42. It is more appropriate—this is the response to the query he raised—for certain provisions, namely clauses 30, 31, 34 and 35, to be commenced at a date appointed by the Secretary of State, rather than on Royal Assent. That is normal practice. The purpose is to allow preparations to take place and the people involved to be brought up to speed on those aspects of the law, rather than forcing adoption on the day of Royal Assent.
Mr Chope
The right hon. Gentleman says that it is important that people should be able to get up to speed, but many of the Bill’s provisions will take effect on the day of Royal Assent. How is it that people will be able to get up to speed on those provisions in time but not on this provision?
Tom Brake
Clearly the Government have made an assessment of the areas where it is possible to prepare in time for Royal Assent and those where it is not, which I think is reflected in the clauses to which I have just referred.
Clauses 30, 31, 34 and 35 do not have a direct effect on the regulated period of the other provisions in part 2, which are affected by the transitional provision. It is more appropriate for clauses 30, 31, 34 and 35 to be subject to commencement by order in the usual way. Amendment 67 takes the opposite approach and appears to intend that, subject to amendment 66, which we have just discussed, all of part 2 but clauses 30, 31, 34 and 35 would not come into force on Royal Assent. However, its effect would in fact be the contrary. In the absence of any considered commencement and transitional provision, all of part 2 would come into force on Royal Assent. I suspect that that is not the intention, but it would be the effect.
In relation to amendments 10, 11 and 12, tabled and spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, it appears that he is seeking to delay the Act’s measures, rather than to have them swiftly implemented. He has already tabled amendments 4, 5 and 6 to clause 41 so that all of part 2 would come into force at the same time and then become subject to the transitional provisions of clause 42. I know that he was seeking to bring clarity, but the effect of amendments 10, 11 and 12, together with amendments 4, 5 and 6, is that the measures in part 2 would not come into effect before the 2015 general election. Amendments 10, 11 and 12 would remove the transitional provision of clause 42 altogether, with the result that the part 2 provisions would come into effect only at the commencement of the next regulated period after Royal Assent, which is unlikely to be the regulated period for the 2015 general election. The Government are committed to enhancing the transparency of spending by third parties, and that includes enacting the measures within part 2 in time for the regulated period of the 2015 general election. I therefore do not consider it appropriate to delay their implementation until after the 2015 general election.
Mr Chope
Going back to the point about people needing to be given time to get up to speed, if clause 30 was brought in immediately on Royal Assent, it would state:
“The Secretary of State may by order vary any percentage for the time being specified”.
What is the point of not bringing that into effect on Royal Assent, because the only impact of doing so would be to give the Secretary of State the power to bring it in? Does the Secretary of State need to be brought up to speed?
Tom Brake
That is a challenging question, so I might need to get back to my hon. Friend shortly on it. I think that the whole issue of percentages is one that might require a response from others and measures to address it. I have heard his query and will ensure that he gets a specific response.
Mr Allen
I will make a small contribution in order to make a request on behalf of those of us who have considerable respect for the opinions expressed about Northern Ireland and concern about the impact of the Bill there. I think that the Deputy Leader of the House inadvertently passed over that without responding to the pertinent points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). This takes the whole question of people intervening when there are questions of free speech to a rather more delicate and, indeed, darker level. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House has some response to the points made by my hon. Friend.
Tom Brake
I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will agree that I tend to take many interventions and make a point of trying to respond to them. To respond to his point on the impact in Northern Ireland, clearly the new definition of controlled expenditure will have an impact on the devolved Administrations. The lowered registration thresholds will also have an impact in Northern Ireland. With regard to Northern Ireland Assembly elections, the amount that a third-party organisation can spend campaigning against a named candidate is being increased from £500 to £700 through this legislation.
Mark Durkan
Will the Deputy Leader of the House clarify something? If there is a non-party campaign on a legislative proposal in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh National Assembly in the same calendar year as a Westminster election, will that count as being within the regulated period, and will that campaign about devolved legislative proposals count as part of controlled expenditure?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman asks a very specific and detailed question. The difficulty in answering it is the extent to which any local community campaign organised at any level would have an impact on Westminster elections. Rather than giving him an off-the-cuff response, I will ensure that he gets a detailed reply. On that point, I will conclude my remarks.
Wayne David
It is not the Opposition’s intention to press new clauses 2 and 3, on the basis of the commitment the Deputy Leader of the House has given to have further discussions, particularly in the House of Lords, which we hope will lead to substantive change. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26
Meaning of “controlled expenditure”
Tom Brake
I beg to move amendment 32, page 12, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert ‘“where—
(a) the expenses fall within Part 1 of Schedule 8A, and
‘(b) the expenditure can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success at any relevant election for—
(i) one or more particular registered parties,
(ii) one or more registered parties who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of such parties, or
(iii) candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of candidates.”’.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 33
Amendment 101, page 12, leave out line 37 to line 9 on page 13 and insert—
‘“For election purposes” means activity which can reasonably be regarded as intended for the primary purpose of—
(a) promoting or procuring electoral success at any relevant election for—
(i) one or more particular registered parties;
(ii) one or more registered parties who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of such parties; or
(iii) candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of candidates.’.
Government amendments 34 to 45.
Tom Brake
Clause 26 sets out the test that third parties need to meet in order to incur controlled expenditure. There has been extensive comment from a number of bodies, such as charities and voluntary organisations, that the Bill will capture their ordinary campaigning activities. That was not the case. However, the Government gave an undertaking in Committee to revert to a test based on the wording of the existing legislation, which provides that controlled expenditure is only that
“which can reasonably be regarded as intended”
to promote or procure the electoral success of parties or candidates. The Government’s amendments meet that commitment.
I would like to thank the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Electoral Commission and others for the constructive discussion we have had in relation to the amendments. I accept that there is not total agreement on our amendments, but I know that the NCVO, for instance, is at least partially happy about the proposals we have come forward with.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
The Deputy Leader of the House will have seen the letter today from Sir Stuart Etherington of NCVO, which states:
“Simply returning to the previous form of words does not solve the problem… In our view, the assurances given by ministers on the floor of the house that charities campaigning on policy issues will not be affected have not been met”.
Tom Brake
I am aware of that, but I am equally aware that Karl Wilding, the NCVO’s director of public policy, said yesterday that it is partially happy about what the Government have done and that we have made some progress. [Interruption.] Yes, I accept that it is partially happy, but it is worth remembering that one of the NCVO’s other concerns, as highlighted in its letter, is the PPERA legislation, which goes back to 2000, under the previous Government. It may be pertinent to remind the Labour party what the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), said:
“In terms of the day-to-day non-campaigning part of their activity, third parties will not be caught by the provision but, if they seek to influence an election, which is the expenditure in question, our proposed arrangements are reasonable.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 41.]
That is very much our view. We are in the same place.
I know that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) is new to his position, but I am sure that he will have been told in his briefing that, in response to a request from one of my right hon. Friends, the Government undertook to ensure that we reverted to the definition applied in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That is precisely what we have done.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
If the statutory arrangements put in place by the previous Government in the 2000 Act were satisfactory, why does the Minister wish to change them now? Can he list even one example of behaviour by third parties that has led him to believe that new legislation is needed?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman may not have understood. The fact is that we had no intention of changing the test of what constituted promoting or procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate. By reverting to the PPERA legislation, we have put charities and other organisations back to where they were in the run-up to the 2005 and 2010 general elections in relation to what constituted procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate. I accept that in other ways we have changed things in response to the Electoral Commission’s request about the definition of controlled expenditure.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
In his letter, Sir Stuart Etherington says:
“A health charity could publish a leaflet highlighting the dangers of smoking. If smoking legislation became a party political issue in an election this activity could be deemed to have the effect of supporting a party’s campaign”.
Has he simply misunderstood the legislation?
Tom Brake
If an anti-smoking organisation ran a campaign subsequently adopted by a party, that would not count as controlled expenditure unless that organisation subsequently said, “Oh, by the way, party X is supporting our campaign, so vote for party X.” The mere fact of running a campaign supported by a party would not incur controlled expenditure. That is clear.
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
There is another point. Back in 2010, the Royal British Legion ran a campaign called “Time to do your bit”. There seems to be an illusion that that would not be possible under the new legislation. Can the Minister assure me that such a campaign would be possible?
Tom Brake
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. That campaign was clearly run on the basis of PPERA, which is what we are reverting to. If the Royal British Legion said, “We are endorsing a candidate who has supported our position and encourage people to vote for them,” it would be caught. [Interruption.] Of course it would be caught, because it would be procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate. If it intended doing such a thing in the 2015 general election, it could choose to register as a non-party organisation and spend £390,000 across the country running that campaign. However, I question whether the Royal British Legion would want to be in such a position.
Stephen Twigg
Will the Minister respond to the specific point raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about the Royal British Legion campaign? In that case, what might apply in England, Wales and Scotland would for obvious reasons not apply in Northern Ireland.
Tom Brake
What applies in Northern Ireland could equally apply in Scotland, England or Wales. It would all depend on whether the Royal British Legion in Northern Ireland was in some way or other promoting or procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate. If it was doing that, it could be caught. If, for instance, it was promoting or procuring the electoral support of a number of candidates because a number had endorsed its message, that would also be deducted from its spend as a third-party organisation if it was promoting the electoral success of a party or candidate. As I said, I doubt whether the Royal British Legion would want to be in the position of promoting a party or candidate. That is not what it does.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Is not the point that all the organisations that we describe in these case studies do not seek the support of one political party, but set out to win a consensus across the political divide for their cause? Therefore they should have nothing to fear.
Tom Brake
That is absolutely the point. I would make a stronger point. In all the conversations that I have had with charities, they have gone to great extremes to underline the fact that as charities they do not campaign for the electoral success of a party or candidate because the Charity Commission would stop their charitable status if they were seen to be campaigning politically. They do not do that, so the argument that the threshold or total national cap is being dropped or will in some way inhibit charities is not true.
Charities do not campaign for the electoral success of a party or candidate so the threshold would not apply and they would not need to keep details of controlled expenditure. [Interruption.] I find it hard to believe that the question is still being asked. Charities are not affected by the Bill because they do not campaign for electoral success.
The Government amendments meet the commitment we made in Committee, and I thank the organisations that we have worked with on the issue. We believe our amendments provide clarification and reassurance to charities, voluntary organisations, community groups and other campaigners that their normal engagement with public policy will not be subject to regulation as long as it cannot reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure the electoral success of a party or candidate.
By reverting to the existing terminology, amendment 32 achieves the aim of making the test for controlled expenditure one that has been in existence since 2000. I have seen continued comment from some organisations that the rules will prevent charities and other campaigners from making their views known. Those objections are based not on what is being done in the Bill but on the rules already set out in PPERA. Those rules have been in place for a number of elections, including the 2005 and 2010 general elections. I am sure that everyone on both sides would agree that, during those elections, charities and other campaigners were not prevented from engaging and influencing public policy.
Tom Brake
I will come to that. Others in the House will know from experience that campaigners make their views abundantly clear at election time, as they should.
In answer to the sedentary intervention from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, I should say that we are changing the controlled expenditure provisions because the Electoral Commission asked us to bring in line the controlled expenditure that applies to third- party organisations to that which applies to political parties. Do the Opposition believe that the current ability for an individual or group of organisations to spend a large amount in one parliamentary constituency is acceptable, or do they think that it should be controlled, as we do?
Mr Harris
The Minister made a good point in stating that the Royal British Legion would not want to be associated with any particular party or candidate. That charity is a good example of one that tries to generate consensus across the electorate.
May I ask the Minister about a different kind of campaign? The RSPCA has a well known objection to the badger cull. It is possible that, in the run-up to the 2015 election, it will run information campaigns opposing the cull. They would not be national campaigns, because they would focus on areas where the cull was happening. Such campaigns would not be for or against any particular party, but we all know what conclusion voters would draw. Would such a campaign be included in this legislation?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to judge whether that campaign would fall foul of the rules without sufficient detail about what it might constitute. It is not my position to do that; it is for the Electoral Commission. If the RSPCA ran a campaign in a number of constituencies saying, “We are against the badger cull”, and subsequently a candidate announced that they were also against it, provided that the RSPCA did not say, “Candidate A is backing our campaign—vote for candidate A”, it would be able to proceed with campaigning. [Interruption.] Someone is saying that I am not able to give a detailed answer. In fact, I am sure that in the run-up to the 2005 and 2010 elections the Electoral Commission had discussions with a number of different organisations to clarify where the boundaries lie on these issues, and it is right for it to do so.
Angela Smith
The Electoral Commission has made clear its view that it should enforce the rules already laid down by Parliament, not determine the rules. The Deputy Leader of the House said that it is up to the commission to decide what is permissible and what is not; surely that is not right.
Tom Brake
The Electoral Commission has produced guidance that the different organisations have to work within, and it will investigate any issues that are believed to have arisen. It clearly has an important role. The Government are not in a position to set out in legislation each and every possible type of campaign that the commission might have to account for. That is why it produces guidance and why—we will support it in this—it will sit down with campaigning organisations to ensure that that guidance is available for them so that they can work effectively.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I recognise that some progress has been made on the precise wording of the clause, but there remains a huge amount of uncertainty among the charities and, indeed, the Electoral Commission as to how this will work. Does the Minister recognise that that makes it very difficult for people not only to understand it but to support it?
Tom Brake
I do. It would be foolish of me to say that some charities are not concerned about this issue. Clearly they are, and the NCVO and others have expressed their concerns. Our role is to restate as many times as is required that, as my hon. Friend will know, charities overwhelmingly do not campaign for the electoral success of a party or candidate and therefore are not caught by our proposals. We can restate that in as much contact with charities as possible. Of course, as I think she would agree, other organisations that are clearly campaigning for the electoral success of a party or candidate should be caught by this legislation, as they are caught by the current legislation. Nothing that we are proposing changes that, apart from the things that I mentioned earlier as regards, for instance, the level of controlled expenditure that we allow.
Dr Francis
The theme of the Deputy Leader of the House’s remarks is that there is considerable misunderstanding out there among voluntary organisations. Would it not be reasonable and decent to provide more time for his proposals to be better understood?
Tom Brake
What is reasonable and appropriate is for us, as a Government, to set out very clearly our intention, which is not to stop charities campaigning on policy issues, and to restate that intention as often as is required so that charities can see what it is. That is what we will carry on doing, and I am confident that we will get the message across.
Government amendment 33 removes the additional test that expenditure might otherwise enhance the standing of a party or candidate. I hope that charities and campaigning organisations will see this as a positive step in providing them with greater clarity. Although we do not consider it to be a significant change, we recognise that this additional limb of the existing PPERA test was perhaps less clear and might have suggested a more remote connection from promoting electoral success, and we want to be clear that that is not our aim. This should provide further clarity and reassurance to campaigners as to the test they have to meet in order to incur controlled expenditure.
Simon Hughes
My right hon. Friend has set out all the things that should be of reassurance, which is very helpful to those in the House and, I hope, outside it. Will he repeat the assurance that he and the Leader of the House are willing, if necessary, to have a further conversation with Stuart Etherington or the commission to make sure, face to face, that what has been said is understood? A great deal of heat and noise has been generated, and at the beginning there might have been some justification for that. The Government are trying to deal with it, but it might be better dealt with by also having some further conversation to make sure that there is dialogue as opposed to just two separate statements in different places.
Tom Brake
I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the doors of the Leader of the House’s office and mine are permanently open to that sort of approach. In fact, the dialogue with the NCVO has been very active and constant, and I am keen to pursue that. The NCVO is, as I stated earlier, at least partially happy and has in the past said that the amendments significantly meet its concerns. There is common ground and we want to ensure that it is developed further.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Although the Deputy Leader of the House has said that this issue is clearly to do with candidates or parties, there is a slight problem with the wording of lines 1 to 4 on page 13, which note that “for election purposes” means
“for the purpose of or in connection with…candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies”.
Although this is a valuable Bill which has been widely misrepresented by 38 Degrees and others, I think that wording presents a potential risk to charities such as the one for which I used to work and campaign, in that it might restrict what they perceive to be their political activity.
Tom Brake
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. My issue with his concern is that that terminology is used in PPERA, which has been around for 13 years. One would therefore have expected such concerns to have emerged in the past 13 years, and seeing as they have not, I am reasonably confident that they will not emerge by 2015 either.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the Government are in listening mode on these issues. Given that Government Members often accuse Labour Members of listening too much to trade unions, I was particularly interested to hear that the Deputy Leader of the House and the Department have been listening to the TUC with regard to the annual conference, so perhaps they are not exempt from lobbying by the unions. The issue of the annual conference is obviously one for the main political parties and some of the minor political parties plus the TUC. Is there a list of defined organisations for these annual conferences?
Tom Brake
I am not aware of a list of defined organisations. If hon. Members look at the list of third-party organisations that registered in 2010 and 2005 they might be able to draw some conclusions about which annual conferences I have in mind.
As I have said, the Government believe that the amendments provide the clarity and reassurance that charities, voluntary organisations and the Electoral Commission have sought. We are aware that campaigners will want to understand how to comply with the provisions of the regulatory regime as amended by the Bill. Just as it has for previous elections, the independent regulator, the Electoral Commission, will develop and produce guidance to inform campaigners what expenditure it is likely to consider to be regulated or not regulated. The Government stand ready to support this work.
Amendment 101, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), seeks, along broadly similar lines to Government amendment 32, to revise the definition of “for election purposes” to be activity which can reasonably be regarded as promoting or procuring the success of a party or candidate. However, the amendment would also introduce a new primary purpose test, which the Government cannot support. Such a test would be likely to create greater regulatory uncertainty and an obvious avenue for avoidance activity that could fatally undermine these rules, which are supported in principle by the hon. Gentleman’s party.
The concerns of campaigners and the Electoral Commission on the introduction of the draft Bill was that the revised language was untested and caused uncertainty. Our purpose in reverting to the original PPERA test is to address those concerns by reintroducing a test with which the commission and campaigners are familiar, and on which the commission has existing guidance and experience. Introducing a new and untested primary purpose test would completely undermine those benefits. Rather than having the clear test of whether the expenditure can be reasonably regarded as intended to promote electoral success there would be two tests: can it be so regarded and is it also the primary purpose? The opportunity for uncertainty and legal challenge would only be increased by the following questions. What is the primary purpose of your campaign? Is it to promote the issue or to promote those who support your issue? That is an additional test which does nothing to provide the clarity that campaigners say they want.
Perhaps more damaging is the opportunity for avoidance. The primary purpose of an environmental organisation’s advertising campaign might be claimed to be to recruit new members and encourage donations, but it might also urge support for its preferred party. It may be said that the primary purpose is to protect animal welfare, but that may be done only by encouraging support for particular candidates. Those are activities that are and ought to be regulated. The primary purpose test would drive a coach and horses through the legislation. Groups carrying out these activities have previously undertaken campaigning as recognised third parties, which is perfectly appropriate: they can campaign without restrictions. Under the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, however, all could be potentially excluded from registration. The Government have responded to concerns from the Electoral Commission and other groups that the test for controlled expenditure needs to be clear. The amendment would introduce unwanted uncertainty for campaigners.
The amendment would also create a loophole in the law that third parties could use as an avenue for avoidance and that would undermine the regulatory regime. That is not just my or the Government’s view. The Electoral Commission has expressed concerns that the amendment would introduce a new subjective element test which could lead to significant regulatory difficulty. It has also stated that it does not support an exemption for charities from these rules. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.
Stephen Twigg
May I first put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), have led on the Bill until now? I also welcome to his post the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), whom I will be shadowing in my new role.
I have heard very little today to change the view I held before the debate started that part 2 of the Bill is little more than a gag on charities and campaigners which, as hon. Members of all parties have said, both today and during the Bill’s earlier stages, will have a chilling effect on our national political debate. Earlier my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly reminded the House that the Bill underwent no pre-legislative scrutiny, and doesn’t it show? Given that it was published just before the summer recess, it is to the particular credit of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), that it was able to give the Bill a degree of scrutiny and table a number of constructive amendments in September and today. What we are left with from the Government is a half-baked set of proposals that pose a real danger of causing more harm than good. It is clear from the widespread concerns raised by charities and campaigning organisations that the lack of consultation and full scrutiny will limit their activities in practice—not in furthering political objectives, but simply in meeting their own charitable objectives.
I listened very carefully to the Deputy Leader of the House’s speeches on this and the previous group of amendments. Nothing that he said has changed the sense I had in preparing for today’s debate that part 2 is a solution in search of a problem.
As the Minister has rightly reminded us, the previous Labour Government introduced a cap on third-party spending, because we do not want to go down the American route of unaccountable organisations spending vast sums of money. We introduced the cap and have no objection to a tough cap on third-party spending. However, the big money in British politics is not third-party spending but spending by the political parties. At the last election, political parties spent 10 times more than third parties. If the Government were serious—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House heckles me from a sedentary position—I cannot quite hear what he is saying—but if he and the Conservative party in particular are serious, why do they not confront their reliance on a tiny number of wealthy donors from the City of London? There is nothing on that in the Bill, which is supposedly about getting the big money out of politics.
In the 2010 general election, political parties nationally spent £31 million; third-party campaigners spent £3 million. The biggest third-party expenditure was 4% of the £17 million spent by the Conservative party, which spent the same as all the other parties and all the third parties added together. Let us be clear: if the Government were serious about taking big money out of politics, they would consider ideas such as a reduction in the overall expenditure cap for political parties during election years and the introduction of a £5,000 cap on donations to political parties.
Stephen Twigg
I will give way when I have made this point. This Government—[Interruption.] Do I get a permanent commentary on my speeches from the Leader of the House? I will get used to it. The Government have wasted an opportunity to tackle the real problem of big money in politics, and thereby ripped up a cross-party approach to party political funding.
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman will know that no agreement has been reached on party funding, but the Liberal Democrats would clearly welcome one. The Committee on Standards in Public Life has said that the overall controlled expenditure cap is generous, but does the Labour party believe that it should be reduced or that it is set at the right level?
Stephen Twigg
I will come to that, but I am not aware of a problem. When an hon. Friend intervened, we did not get an answer from the Minister on whether there is an example in practice of the limit being too high. However, the Opposition do not have a closed mind on a proper cross-party, evidence-based debate on the matter. We do not believe the Government have done that.
Stephen Twigg
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that one risk is that the Bill will result in litigation and a shift in the use of moneys that charities would otherwise use to fulfil their charitable objectives. However, I think that the situation might be worse. As I have said, nothing that I have heard today has changed my view, which has been expressed by other Labour Front Benchers, that many organisations will be gagged because they will simply stop their campaigning work owing to their fears about the legislation. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House can shake their heads, but that is what organisations fear. That is deeply unhealthy for our democracy.
In conclusion, will the Government amendments mean that issue-based campaigning will be excluded from the regulations? From Ros Baston and other lawyers it is an unequivocal “no”. Secondly, and crucial to today’s discussion, will the amendments make any significant changes to the categories of activities to be covered by regulation? Ros Baston finds that the changes will not improve the clarity of proposed regulation, and indeed are likely to result in new uncertainties. In other words, instead of making progress, the Government amendments risk making a bad situation even worse.
We have already heard about the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which the Deputy Leader of the House said was partially happy. I invite colleagues to read the letter, dated today, from Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the NCVO. He states:
“The Leader of the House suggests that at both the 2005 and 2010 election this wording has not prevented charities and voluntary organisations from campaigning and influencing policy…The Leader misses an important point. At previous elections the definition of controlled expenditure only applied to ‘election material’ (a much narrower category of activity) and expenditure thresholds were set at reasonable and workable levels. The Bill in its current form has significantly expanded the list of activities, and considerably lowered the threshold. The overall effect will therefore be that more charities and voluntary organisations will be subject to the enhanced and much more onerous rules.”
Tom Brake
I am afraid that the phrase I have repeated many times will get repeated again. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that charities and voluntary organisations do not campaign for the electoral success of a party or candidates, and therefore will not be caught by controlled expenditure?
Stephen Twigg
If that is the case, why are we having this conversation and debate? If there is no issue, why have the Government brought this Bill before the House, unless there is something about which they are concerned?
As others have said, there is a real risk of a chilling effect on our national debate given the timing and rush of this Bill. The Minister has acknowledged that the Government are in a rush to get the legislation in place for the 2015 general election, and inevitably people will think that they are trying to insulate their own record, MPs and candidates from legitimate democratic criticism. A number of high-profile campaigns could have been stymied by the legislation, such as that run by the National Union of Students in 2010 on tuition fees, the equal marriage campaign by Stonewall, or, as many Members have said, the Royal British Legion military covenant campaign.
At a time when trust in politics is at an all-time low, why are the Government bringing forward a measure that could restrict the one part of our politics that is doing a good job of engaging people? As well as having a chilling effect on debate, the Bill could also allow this Government, and future Governments, to escape scrutiny on their record and policies. To pluck an example of interest to the Liberal Democrats, might it stop the National Union of Students from holding them to account for how they voted on tuition fees, stop organisations such as the excellent Family and Childcare Trust from highlighting how the Government have driven up the cost of child care for working families, or stop the Royal College of Nursing from warning the public about the impact of Government health policies?
The Royal British Legion was mentioned earlier in the debate, and its circular makes an incredibly powerful case about the weakness of the Government amendment. The Royal British Legion remains
“unconvinced that legitimate awareness-raising activities won’t be captured by the revised definition”.
The Electoral Commission’s own briefing confirms those concerns:
“activity does not have to be ‘party political’ for its costs to be regulated.”
Is it really the Government’s intention for the excellent work of organisations such as the Royal British Legion to be curtailed because of this hastily thrown together Bill? Surely it is not. Had they undertaken proper pre-legislative scrutiny—a case made powerfully by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee—they would have discovered the problems that this clause and this part of the Bill will create.
Mr Harris
My hon. Friend is right to raise that concern. It occurs to me that, no matter how complicated a problem is, it will be a lot more complicated when we introduce talk of any of the devolved Administrations.
I want to offer one more important example that has been raised previously with the Minister. The National Union of Students might arrive in his constituency in the year running up to May 2015 with a leaflet saying, “Here is a photograph of your MP, Tom Brake, signing a pledge not to vote in any circumstances for increased tuition fees. This is what he said, and this is how he voted.” Will he confirm—yes or no—whether that campaign or that union would fall foul of the spending limits and the sanctions in the Bill? That is a reasonable question, and it is reasonable to ask the Minister to say, one way or another, whether that is the case.
At the last general election, I attended a number of hustings. At the very end of one that was organised by a church—a charitable organisation—it was announced that the candidates present would be asked to sign a public pledge and that a photograph of the candidates signing the pledge would be subsequently distributed to voters. The pledge was to campaign to allow asylum seekers to get work legally. I said, “No, I don’t believe in that policy,” and had to walk off the stage and allow the other candidates to have their photograph taken, which would have had an effect on the voting intentions of certain groups of people in my constituency. A charitable organisation was distributing information that had an effect on my election. Will the Minister say whether that, in his opinion, according to the legislation, will fall foul of the limits and sanctions in the Bill?
Those are important questions. If the Minister can answer them one way or the other, he would help a great deal in reassuring members of civic society and the heads of charities on whether their activities in the run-up to the next general election will, after all, be perfectly legal and not subject to sanctions.
Tom Brake
With the leave of the House, Mr Speaker, I should like to respond to a couple of points.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said that we need to address party funding. I agree with him. The Government offered the Labour party an opportunity in the Bill to address trade union funding, which the leader of the Labour party wants to address. I regret that that offer was not taken up.
The hon. Gentleman referred extensively to legal advice —he said that that was not the entirety of his speech, although it did feel that way. One point he did make was that, because of the Bill, organisations must consult to see whether what they propose to do is acceptable. However, they must do exactly that under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—there will be circumstances in which organisations will want to check whether what they do is within the rules. There is no change in that respect.
I was hoping to hear from the hon. Gentleman something about what the Opposition believe. We have heard that they support the measure in principle, but, contrary to what he has said, we did not hear whether they believe that the cap is appropriate or that there is a need for a constituency limit, or whether they support the extension of controlled expenditure to other items, which the Electoral Commission has asked us to do.
The hon. Gentleman went on to explain that he would support amendment 101. The Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee said that although he wanted that amendment to be passed, he did not really want it to be in the Bill in practice. That was an unusual position to adopt.
Mr Allen
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House inadvertently about the words that I used and my intent. I would be happy to see amendment 101 in the Bill. However, I feel that there is sufficient time for the Government—even this Government—to improve the wording. I do not claim that it is perfect. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who has conducted the debate quite civilly to date, will not misrepresent me again.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has made his point, to which there is no requirement for a reply. The Deputy Leader of the House may continue with his advocacy.
Tom Brake
I have noted the hon. Gentleman’s point. The Opposition spokesman said that he would support amendment 101. Personally, I think that it should be put into room 101.
The hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) supported what the Government are doing, which I welcome. He said that he would not support the loss of freedom of speech and nor would I or anybody else on the Front Bench. This is a good opportunity to remind people that this Government have got rid of ID cards, stopped the retention of the DNA of innocent people, got rid of internal exile and reduced the pre-charge detention period from 28 to 14 days. We will take no lectures on civil liberties from the Opposition.
The Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee explained the he is the trustee of a charity. I congratulate him on that. He said that he would advise his charity not to campaign on policy issues. I hope that that is not the case. We are talking about the PPERA legislation from 2005 and 2010. I assume that he did not advise his charity not to campaign on policy issues in 2005 and 2010, so I hope that he will not give it that advice now.
Tom Brake
I am afraid that I am due to complete my remarks. I am happy to discuss the hon. Gentleman’s point of view with him later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) rightly highlighted the risk of having a subjective test. He pointed out what part 2 is about, which has been rather lost in this debate. It is about preventing organisations such as the National Rifle Association from playing a major part in elections in this country.
There were a number of other contributions. The Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights said that the Bill may well have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and assembly, and he called for a democratic pause. We will certainly consider his Committee’s report and we can work with the timetable that he set out for its publication. However, as I said in response to a similar intervention, we intend to move forward with the proposals.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) expressed support for amendment 101, which the Government oppose adamantly.
Finally, the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) asked me again to comment on a number of theoretical campaigns, without providing the detail that I or anybody else would need to judge whether they would constitute promoting or procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate. I am therefore clearly not in a position to comment.
I have listened carefully to what the Opposition have said, but I will press the Government amendments.
Amendment 32 agreed to.
Amendment made: 33, page 12, line 34, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘( ) Omit subsection (3).’.—(Tom Brake.)
Amendment proposed: 101, page 12, leave out line 37 to line 9 on page 13 and insert—
‘“For election purposes” means activity which can reasonably be regarded as intended for the primary purpose of—
(a) promoting or procuring electoral success at any relevant election for—
(i) one or more particular registered parties;
(ii) one or more registered parties who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of such parties; or
(iii) candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of candidates.’. —(Mr Allen.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Allen
The hon. Lady makes a clear and succinct point. The sad fact is that this provision is a mystery; clause 27 has no antecedents and no pedigree, and we are not sure why it is in the Bill. Nobody has asked for a reduction in the interaction. Many colleagues throughout the House want a greater interaction—dare I cite the Prime Minister talking about the big society? I welcomed those words, because I would like to see that. This provision does not welcome the big society; it shrinks the big society to a slightly smaller big society that feels unloved, chilled, unable to get its point of view over and unable to articulate the things that drive it to be in existence.
My reason for moving amendment 102 and asking colleagues in all parts of the House to support it is, again, to send a signal to the Government that they should think again on the issue—this is not the end of the process. They should go away, take good advice, perhaps even listen to this House and perhaps even set up an arrangement whereby further evidence can be taken. My Committee, which is all-party, and its unanimous report might be able to help in that, and we are keen to find a way forward that arrives at a consensus. The only way in which we will get that pause, and get the Government to have another think and a little more of a listen to all the people who are writing to us today on this issue—people whose credentials are unimpeachable—is by voting down clause 27 tonight. The only way to do that is to support amendment 102 and I urge all colleagues to do so.
Tom Brake
Third parties may campaign in a relevant election up to a particular threshold without being subject to any electoral controls or restrictions on their activities. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 sets the threshold for third parties campaigning in England at £10,000, and at £5,000 for third parties campaigning in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Third parties may exceed these thresholds only if they register with the Electoral Commission as “recognised third parties”. They are then permitted to incur “controlled expenditure”, as it is defined by clause 26 of this Bill
Upon registration, third parties also become subject to spending and donations controls for the duration of the regulated period of the relevant election. The Bill’s intention is to ensure greater transparency of campaign finance, and so provides that a third party must register with the Electoral Commission as a “recognised third party” if it wishes to spend more than the revised threshold in the Bill—£5,000 in England or £2,000 in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. That will have the effect that more third parties will account for their expenditure and provide details of the donations they receive. It is not clear to me what the Opposition’s concerns about this provision are. It is about providing more transparency so that people can see who is campaigning locally in support of a party or candidates.
Lady Hermon
What is the reasoning for halving the expenditure threshold from £10,000 to £5,000 in England but more than halving the threshold in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Our threshold has been reduced from £5,000 to £2,000. Unless my maths escapes me, our figure is less than half what it was. What is the justification for doing that?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. The reason is simply that the Government wanted to arrive at some straightforward figures—£5,000 and £2,000 in the respective nations—and we felt that given the size of those nations, spending £2,000 had a significant impact on the election campaign. Therefore, from a transparency point of view, we felt this was important to allow people to see who was actively campaigning in support of a party or candidates.
Mark Durkan
The Deputy Leader of the House says that the Government wanted a figure that was straightforward. Were the existing figures not straightforward enough? Who has been running rings around them? What has been the ambit of the abuse that the Government are trying to deal with? What problem has been solved? Problems have been created, but the Deputy Leader of the House has not told us what problem is being solved.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the Deputy Leader of the House responds, I ought to emphasise what should be apparent to everybody—namely, that we are operating under very tight time constraints. There are amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) about which he might wish, perfectly reasonably, to speak and others also wish to contribute. A degree of self-discipline is now imperative.
Tom Brake
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. The answer to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is that the provision is about transparency and making people aware of a wider range of organisations that are campaigning in constituencies up and down the country in support of a party or candidate.
Once a third party has registered with the Electoral Commission it may then only incur controlled expenditure to a maximum spending limit, which is currently set at approximately 5% of the potential party spend. That amounts to just under £1 million—£988,000—across the UK. Evidence from recent elections shows that the third-party spending limit for UK parliamentary elections, which applies separately for each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is so high that third parties are effectively unrestricted in their level of spending. That renders the limit ineffective as a spending control.
As Members will be aware, clause 27 lowers the spending limits for the purposes of UK parliamentary elections to 2% of the maximum campaign expenditure limit that applies to political parties campaigning in UK parliamentary elections. That is equivalent to £319,800 in England, £35,400 in Scotland, £24,000 in Wales and £10,800 in Northern Ireland. The Bill lowers the thresholds to increase transparency by identifying third parties that campaign in the political process, and I should have thought that Opposition Members would support that. Amendment 59 would amend clause 27 so that it no longer does that.
It is right to distinguish which organisations incur expenditure campaigning at elections and to ensure their funds are fully accounted for, but we recognise that there is a balance to be struck between transparency and placing regulatory requirements on third parties. We also need to take account of the spending limit in constituencies, to which I shall come shortly.
Amendment 60 proposes that until the Electoral Commission has undertaken an assessment of the impact of clause 27 on both political parties and third parties, and until that report is laid before Parliament, the provisions of clause 27 may not come into effect. A few hours ago, we had a lengthy debate on the impact assessments that the Government has carried out and that we would expect the Electoral Commission, as part of its normal duties, to conduct after the legislation is implemented and elections have taken place.
At the last general election, the largest 10% of third parties spent more than the remaining 90% put together. We are seeking a level playing field for the different third parties that might oppose each other in the course of an election campaign. It is worth noting that only two organisations spent more than the new lowered limits proposed in the Bill—Unison and Vote for a Change. That demonstrates that the spending limit is so high as to be ineffectual in creating the level playing field that spending limits seek to provide.
Clause 28 sets the constituency limits and the Government have been put on the spot and asked why we want to reduce the national spending cap. Third parties must comply with particular spending limits according to whether they are campaigning in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Under the provisions of the Bill, they may spend up to an aggregate £390,000 campaigning in a UK parliamentary election, a figure that we think allows third parties to campaign vigorously nationally but that also provides a greater degree of control over spending to ensure that big money does not seek to play a part in influencing the outcome of elections, particularly in a limited number of constituencies, distorting the electoral process. A third party could, however, choose to direct the entire national spending limit at only a small part of the UK. Again it is not clear whether the Opposition are comfortable with the current situation, where that is possible, or whether they would like to see change. Our view is that we do not want disproportionately large amounts of money to be focused on a limited number of seats. In other circumstances, that is the argument that the Opposition would put to us today if we were not taking the action that we are taking.
Clause 28 therefore introduces an entirely new provision whereby third parties will be permitted to spend only up to a certain proportion of their controlled expenditure in individual constituencies. Subsection (6) limits this per constituency spending to 0.05% of the maximum campaign expenditure limits applied to political parties, which amounts to £9,750. This limit applies for the duration of the regulated period for a UK parliamentary general election.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I wonder why, if there was a particular situation relating to a particular constituency, it would be wrong for a disproportionate amount of energy to be focused on that constituency. Surely in this country we have a general election, but within that we have 650 individual elections, and if there were special, unique features associated with a particular constituency and an argument going on there, it would not be unreasonable to have a different expenditure level in that seat.
Tom Brake
I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would agree that election campaigns were about political parties fighting together to secure the election of one of the candidates, and that if, for instance, an industrialist who was very pro-fracking decided that he or she wanted to unseat a parliamentary candidate who was anti-fracking and was prepared to spend just under £1 million under the current legislation in unseating that candidate, the hon. Gentleman would not support that. We certainly do not want to allow that to happen.
Further, also under subsection (6)—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say very gently to the Deputy Leader of the House, to whose contribution I am listening with my usual interest and respect, that I know that he will want the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) to be able to speak from the Opposition Front Bench, as well as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I therefore confidently anticipate that the right hon. Gentleman is approaching the conclusion of his oration.
Tom Brake
Indeed, I will do so.
Under subsection (6), only a proportion of the expenditure—£5,850—may be incurred during the period between the dissolution of Parliament and the date of poll. Third parties campaigning for or against a particular candidate or candidates already need to think carefully about their spending to ensure that they stay on the right side of the separate, existing rules on candidate expenditure in the Representation of the People Act 1983. Third parties clearly campaigning for or against a particular candidate or candidates may spend only up £500 doing so. Besides raising this amount to £800 through clause 34, the Bill does not otherwise affect those provisions.
There are many other amendments that I would have liked to have an opportunity to discuss today, but the Government can support none of the amendments in this group. I hope therefore that Members will seek to withdraw them.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for being so co-operative.
Tom Brake
I wish to make a few brief comments. First, I say to the hon. Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) that the problem with someone dusting down their Second Reading speech is that they miss changes made to the Bill in the interim. I would, however, like to thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. I appreciate that organisations from all walks of life have expressed views—sometimes strong views—about the Bill, and I am grateful that so many have taken the time to share them.
The Bill is about transparency and giving the public confidence in our political system. I am sure that no Member would disagree that we must ensure that all those who impact on our democracy do so transparently, accountably and fairly—these measures will do that. This debate has covered a wide range of viewpoints. There is not time to address every point that has been raised, but I will quickly recap what this Bill will do, as that should address points raised. It will introduce a statutory register of consultant lobbyists to complement our existing transparency regime; it will fill a specific gap where it is not certain on whose behalf consultant lobbyists are lobbying; it will ensure that third parties campaigning at elections do so in a fully transparent manner; and it will give the public reassurance that trade unions which influence public life beyond their own members know who those members are. The Bill will bring greater transparency to our political system, as we promised to do, and I therefore commend it to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Tom Brake Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
I beg to move,
That the Order of 3 September 2013 (Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill: Programme) be varied as follows:
Proceedings on Consideration
For paragraph (6) substitute–
“(6) Proceedings on Consideration–
(a) shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown, and
(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
First day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1; amendments to Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clause 3, Schedule 2 and Clauses 4 to 25. | 10pm on the first day |
Second day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 2; amendments to Clause 26, Schedule 3, Clauses 27 to 32, Schedule 4 and Clauses 33 to 35; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 3; amendments to Part 3; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 4; amendments to Part 4; remaining new Clauses; remaining new Schedules; remaining proceedings on Consideration”. | One hour before the moment of interruption on the second day. |
The programme motion amends the programme motion of 3 September, with the effect that day one of the debate will focus on part 1 of the Bill, and day two will cover parts 2 to 4. This remains consistent with our intention that two days should be provided for the Report stage of the Bill. This was announced at business questions on 18 July and was not objected to by the Opposition at that time.
As we have seen, the Bill has been widely debated by hon. Members across the House. I recognise the breadth of views that have been shared on various measures within the Bill, and I believe it is important that this House is able to debate all parts of it. I therefore propose that the debate on part 1 concludes at the end of day one, so parts 2 to 4 can be debated on day two.
This programme motion also proposes that we debate each part of the Bill in turn, so that the discussion takes the following order: we first debate new clauses and new schedules for that part; then amendments to clauses and schedules for that part, with each schedule brought up so that it directly follows the clause to which it relates. This programme motion will enable a smooth and effective debate of all parts of the Bill. I therefore move this motion.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Tom Brake Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
I shall respond to my hon. Friend’s intervention in a moment. I want my speech to reflect what has been said in the debate so far, and the point that he has made has already begun to emerge during our discussion of clause 36 and the amendments.
Another point has emerged as well, and it constitutes a direct challenge to Ministers. The face of the Bill bears the following declaration from the Leader of the House:
“In my view the provisions of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.”
Members of Parliament and legal experts outside the House have rightly asked whether article 8 of the convention, in particular, is not confounded by the provisions of clause 36. The clause gives the certification officer, or any investigator whom he may appoint, sweeping powers of access to very personal individual information about trade union members, which could contravene article 8 and the right to privacy. As I think the Committee will appreciate, union members are rightly concerned and sensitive about the issue, given the recent history of blacklisting and discrimination on the basis of trade union membership or activity. What I should like the Minister to do when he responds to the debate—
John Healey
What I should like the Minister to do when she responds to the debate is give the Committee a commitment that she will publish, or place in the Library of the House, the legal advice on which the Leader of the House’s statement on the front of the Bill is based, so that we can lay that concern to rest.
Let me now turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) asked what was the problem with which clause 36, and part 3 as a whole, had been designed to deal. Even the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) rightly asked the same question, albeit in different terms. He asked what intention was behind the provisions in clause 36. Our debate so far has clearly shown that there is no evidence of a problem, that there is no public call for these changes, and that there is no principled case for them. We can only conclude that the intention, or the purpose, of the clause is to tighten the legislative leash on trade unions and their ability to take proper, lawful industrial action.
Mr Anderson
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Sheridan.
I intend to focus on clause 36 stand part. Let me begin by putting it on the record—in case anyone thinks that I am trying to hide it—that I am very much part of the trade union movement. I am a former national president of Unison, and a honorary life member of that union; I am a member of the Communication Workers Union, and a former proud member of the National Union of Mineworkers; and I was a member of the General Council of the TUC for six years. So I think that I may just have a little bit of an idea of what we are talking about, whereas other Members who are in the Chamber may not.
I was actively involved in the trade union movement for 40 years, and during that time I challenged very drastically some of the legislation that has been referred to today, including the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which the trade unions described at the time as a scabs’ charter. That was exactly what it was there for. It was there to help people to take on and undermine their own trade unions. It was a deliberate attempt by the Conservative party to undermine trade union legislation and trade union activity, and exactly the same thing is happening today. This Bill is part and parcel of that legislation. [Interruption.] It looks as though the Minister wants to intervene.
The Temporary Chairman (Jim Sheridan)
The Chair will decide what is in order.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Tom Brake Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Thurso
May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship and eagle eye, Mr Hoyle? Having regard to the point of order I shall keep my remarks as brief as I can.
Amendment 47 stands in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and is linked to amendment 46. I will also speak to new clause 4 although I do not intend to speak to any other amendments. Briefly, let me explain the context behind why I tabled these amendments. Part 2 of the Bill sets out limits and rules relating to non-party political campaigning. As I understand it, the Government’s intention is to draw a clear distinction between the activities of those such as charities and interest groups that seek particular policy outcomes that they promote to all candidates and parties in an election, against those third parties that seek to influence the outcome of an election by support or opposition to particular parties or candidates.
Our electoral system is based on a principle enshrined for many years that all political activity at elections, whether by established party or non-party groups, is regulated as to the amount of expenditure they may use. That is a long-held view. Our electoral system has held that unlimited funding on the US model is not how we wish to do our politics or elections, and that we should have expenditure limits. I wholly concur with that principle.
It is therefore right that non-party political campaigns should be subject to that principle just as much as parties—a point that was clearly accepted in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Indeed, if one were to reverse the argument, it would be very odd if non-partisan groups, or even charities, were to argue that they alone should be free to have an unfettered right to spend money with regard to who wins or loses an election, either in the country or an individual seat. Notwithstanding that principle, there are justifiable concerns about some aspects of the drafting of this Bill, and the amendments seek to address one such concern.
Clause 26, as drafted, amends section 85 of the 2000 Act. Amendment 47 paves way for the meat of the issue, which is amendment 46. It simply puts forward the proposition that we should leave the status quo in place. By deleting subsections (3) and (4), the amendment seeks to state that the Government wish to proceed on the basis that nothing has changed in that definition, so that is what we should have. My proposition is straightforward: let us stick with the status quo.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
I thought it might be useful to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members if I intervened at an early stage to say that the Government have listened to the concerns expressed by charities. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House met the National Council for Voluntary Organisations on Friday. We intend to introduce amendments on Report that will address many of the concerns that my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and other hon. Members have expressed. I assure my hon. Friend that the concerns he is expressing will be addressed on Report.
John Thurso
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. I was about to say that I hope the proposals find favour in the eyes of the Government and that they accept them. If he is saying that the Government accept the principle behind the proposals and would like to introduce on Report an amendment that does the same thing, it would be extremely churlish of me not to accept it.
John Thurso
I am unlikely to get inspiration from anywhere, so my short answer is that I do not know. However, to my mind, nothing in the Bill should do that. I would be extraordinarily opposed to anything that sought to curb the press in that way.
Andrew George
I would like to correct the intervention by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). The NCVO indicated to me that it was to an extent reassured, and Stuart Etherington said the change in the Government’s position was tantamount to a significant step in the right direction. That does not mean, and I did not say, that the NCVO and the charitable sector are now completely happy with part 2 of the Bill—they most certainly are not.
Wayne David
I will refer specifically to the NCVO position and what has happened in the past few days, but I want to make this point first. There has been a groundswell of concern over the summer. Just a few days ago, before the NCVO meeting, the Leader of the House responded to concerns by saying, “Don’t worry, you’ve all got it wrong. We are absolutely certain that we are right and you are all wrong. This won’t affect charities and voluntary organisations at all.” That was the Government’s line. On Friday, as has been said, he changed his tune and indicated to the NCVO that there would be a concession. I would like to know what precisely the concession will be. The Deputy Leader of the House wanted to intervene a moment ago. Perhaps he can say precisely what the concession will be.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I thought it would be useful if he had on record what Stuart Etherington from the NCVO said in relation to clause 26—and it relates to clause 26 only, not to other clauses:
“I am pleased that the Government has listened to and significantly met the concerns of charities and community groups. I understand the Government’s intention was not to make their normal work subject to this regulation. We will work closely with the Government and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in order to deliver this intention.”
I am a little afraid that that might mean that the hon. Gentleman has to rewrite his speech. There is a clear undertaking from the Government to work with the NCVO to ensure that it, and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), are happy about clause 26.
Wayne David
I read the press release issued on Friday and I had discussions with the NCVO only this morning. It has issued a brief that updates its position, saying clearly—as I do—that it welcomes this movement, but that the Government have a heck of a long way to go. There is nothing to stop the Government today putting forward, on the Floor of the House, a written commitment to give us an outline of what they want to do. All we have had is a nod and a wink and a promise.
Wayne David
My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point that highlights the lack of clarity and the confusion at the heart of the Bill. We have heard the fine words of the Deputy Leader of the House on what the Government intend to do, but will he give us this commitment: will he put in writing, by means of a draft amendment that he can amend if necessary, what he has said to the Committee today? Will he provide that substantive material? Please reply.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that offer. I am sure he would prefer that the Government’s legal counsel ensured that they work to build up the amendment—on which we have already given an undertaking to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and, as Stuart Etherington has indicated, the NCVO—to ensure that, on Report, the fundamental concern of charities over the confusion that they say the Government have introduced into the definition of election materials and election purposes will be addressed.
Wayne David
I respectfully remind the Minister that the Bill was literally drafted on the back of an envelope in a couple of days. All we are asking is that the Government give us a draft amendment, subject to all the caveats that they want to put in about legal advice and so on, so that we have, in writing, the Government’s commitment. Otherwise many people will think that these are simply hollow words from the Government.
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am grateful to him for reminding me of paragraph 59, because I, too, had underlined it. That makes the situation almost completely unpredictable for voluntary sector organisations.
Helen Goodman
Yes, but that is the whole problem. They may not say, “Vote Liberal Democrat”, but if they say, “Don’t vote for candidates who voted for an increase in tuition fees,” everybody will be pretty clear what that means. The right hon. Gentleman’s party would be perfectly well able to go to court and say, “The effect of the expenditure must also be considered and it is clearly discriminatory against Liberal Democrat candidates.” That is the problem.
Mr Walker
The hon. Lady makes a constructive intervention, and no doubt the Minister will want to respond. Political engagement at whatever level in almost every form is greatly to be encouraged. I hope that the Government listen to the real concerns expressed today, and that that level of engagement is not suppressed.
Tom Brake
I thank the Chair of the Procedure Committee for his contribution to the debate, and I acknowledge the excellent work he does on behalf of mental health charities. I assure him that mental health charities that campaign on policy issues will not be affected by what we are debating today. I hope he will agree, however, that if during a general election campaign one of the charities he has referred to advocated support for a party or a number of candidates, that would, in effect, constitute electioneering and have to be accounted for.
Wayne David
It is unusual for the Opposition spokesman to make a second speech in such a debate, but it is important to hone in on a few points that have been made on both sides of the Committee. There is a high degree of consensus, and very few, if any, hon. Members have made partisan contributions. All recognise the value of civil society and of it engaging fully in our democratic process.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) spoke of how the nature of society is changing, and of how civil society is becoming more important in our democracy. We should recognise that and enhance such involvement. We have also heard how public policy is extremely important, particularly with regard to the devolved institutions, for campaigning organisations and the voluntary sector. Hon. Members have heard how charities do not simply raise money, but have a great deal of input into the development of policy in their respective areas, so public policy formation and charity work come together.
In my view, all those points have produced a unanimous view in the Committee. It is important that the Minister acknowledges the relatively uniformity of view in the Committee, and recognises the need for more discussion among hon. Members, and perhaps more importantly among those outside the Chamber who will be directly affected, including the Electoral Commission, charities and campaigning organisations.
Hon. Members have honed in on clause 26. I heard what the Deputy Leader of the House said at the beginning of the debate about amending the clause and schedule 3, so I ask him, in the next few minutes, to give the Committee a commitment that he will have a dialogue with the Opposition, the Electoral Commission and all the organisations that are concerned about the implementation of the measures.
This positive debate has shown that the Committee is not against change. All hon. Members recognise that change must take place, but we also recognise that, in a democracy, if change is to enhance our democratic process, it must take place on the basis of consensus and agreement.
Tom Brake
I apologise for the fact that I will take some time to respond. We have been debating the matter for two or two and half hours, and it is appropriate for me to respond to many of the points that have been made. If I am unable to respond in the debate to the points hon. Members have made, or if I do not respond, they can take them up with me later and I will respond in writing.
The debate on Second Reading raised a number of important issues relating to clause 26, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) and the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David), for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) for the amendments they have tabled.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly criticised the Government by saying that the Bill was rushed, but then invited me to draft the amendment we had been discussing here and now, thereby short-circuiting any discussion with interested parties on that particular issue. In response to the specific request he and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made on when an amendment will be tabled and whether there will be a process for engaging with the Opposition, the Electoral Commission and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, I can provide them with reassurance that that process will happen. I am happy to meet the hon. Member for Caerphilly to discuss proposed Government amendments. Discussions will take place with the Electoral Commission and the NCVO prior to them being finalised. Although the House will be in conference recess, the Government hope to table amendments at least a week before to give Members time to consider them.
Wayne David
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his positive comment. If he is giving a commitment to effectively redrafting clause 26, he will have no problem if the Committee votes against it tonight.
Tom Brake
It will be up to the hon. Gentleman to make his decision. I have given an undertaking, and am about to give a more detailed undertaking, of what we intend to do with clause 26. It will be up to him to decide whether he feels that that is appropriate.
The main purpose of clause 26 is to align the activities that count as controlled expenditure for political parties and third parties. Many Members have referred to the Electoral Commission’s objections to aspects of the Bill. As far as I am aware, no one has referred to what it had to say on the alignment of the definition of controlled expenditure for political parties and third parties, and I would like to put that on the record. Recommendation 29 of its June 2013 report states:
“The rules on PPERA non-party campaigning that is intended to influence voters should be changed so that they more closely reflect the scope of rules for political parties by covering events, media work and polling, as well as election material.”
That is what the Electoral Commission has to say about the importance of ensuring that the two measures mesh carefully.
Wayne David
What the right hon. Gentleman says is of course correct. Why, if he believes there should be greater alignment between the two areas of expenditure, does he want to introduce a staff cost to the voluntary sector that does not apply to political parties? He cannot have it both ways.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it gives me the opportunity to underline that under the current definition of controlled expenditure, staff costs for non-party organisations have to be accounted for. This is not a departure; we are extending the requirement on them to account for staff costs to the new areas of controlled expenditure that we think should be covered, such as research.
Mr Allen
The Deputy Leader of the House is absolutely right that the Electoral Commission says those words. My Select Committee read a little further than the right hon. Gentleman, and it is in our report for any Member to read. It says:
“However, crucially, they”—
the Electoral Commission—
“added: ‘this would need careful consideration’. This careful consideration appears to have been lacking.”
Tom Brake
I thank the Select Committee Chair for that further clarification of the Electoral Commission’s quote. What we are doing to bring these two measures of controlled expenditure in line is careful and considered. We may, if we have time, come to clause 27. I suspect that we may debate other aspects later.
Dr Francis
The Minister talks about careful consideration. Will he produce a human rights memorandum on the Bill and will he allow my Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to produce a report? We only began to deal with this report today and we hope to report sometime in October. Will he allow us the opportunity to present that report to the House and for him to consider it?
Tom Brake
On the human rights aspects, some Members have questioned whether the Bill is compliant. The Government’s assessment is that we consider all the spending limits in the Bill to be compatible with article 10 and have taken into account the amount that the third parties are permitted to spend under the reduced limits and the amount that they spend now. Clearly this has been given active consideration by the Government, as the hon. Gentleman would expect.
The main purpose of clause 26 is to align the activities that count as controlled expenditure for political parties and third parties. At present, the activities that count as controlled expenditure depend on whether we are referring to a political party or a third party. This means that spending by recognised third parties to assist a political party with the cost of an event would be captured as political party spending. However, if the recognised third party were independently to organise such an event itself—perhaps supporting that same party—such spending would not be caught. That highlights why we are trying to ensure that these two definitions—for third parties and for political parties—are brought into line.
We agree with the Electoral Commission that the current variation in what constitutes controlled expenditure for a political party and for a recognised third party is a potential gap in the regulation of spending in the UK elections, hence the intention behind clause 26. I believe that aligning the definition of controlled expenditure is a reasonable and sensible measure. However, to achieve this, the current definition of election materials needs to be revised. [Interruption.] I hope Members will let me finish what I am saying before trying to intervene. At present, recognised third parties incur controlled expenditure in connection with the production or publication of election material that is made available to the public. As a result, the Bill proposes to replace “election materials” with “for election purposes”; as we are aligning the activities with those of parties, we are also aligning the language of the test.
As we have said, the Government do not believe that we are significantly changing or widening the present test. Controlled expenditure would be incurred only where an organisation is promoting or procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate. However, I am conscious, as are the Government, of the concerns raised by right hon. and hon. Members that charities and voluntary organisations will be caught by the proposals in clause 26 and that the new language leaves room for ambiguity. This is not the Government’s intention.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that what he and the Government are proposing is that if a charity puts out a leaflet saying “Vote for people in favour of animal welfare”—I have voted recently in favour of animal welfare—and if, as happened at the last election in Bassetlaw, the Conservative party unwisely and unsuccessfully spends £250,000 sending direct mails to my electorate with pictures of some southern politician, the Conservative party will be able to do that but the charity will not?
Tom Brake
On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the political parties have sought to get an agreement on party political funding and that that was not possible. He can speculate on where the blockage for that was. On the question of the charity, I can assure him that if his charity campaigned in the run-up to the 2010 general election, we will ensure that it has the same level of clarity about what and how it can campaign as it did then. I hope that he will acknowledge that some of the concerns expressed today about the uncertainties for charities about what they can and cannot do exist under the present legislation. Those charities already have discussions with the Charity Commission and the Electoral Commission, under the present legislation, about what they can and cannot do
John Mann
So to confirm, the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the Conservative party could spend that money, which was wasted in Bassetlaw—or, indeed, it could spend it against him, very personally and directly—but that if a charity campaigned on how he or I voted, and if it persuaded us in the year running up to an election and then used its resources to e-mail its supporters or members, who then e-mailed us to congratulate us on how we voted, it could be caught out by the law.
Tom Brake
We could continue this rather unfruitful dialogue, or I can restate that, whatever the charity to which the hon. Gentleman refers did in the run-up to the 2010 general election, we will ensure the same clarity about what it can do in the run-up to the 2015 general election, and there would be no difference.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. The Minister is not giving way at this point. Hon. Members must let him continue.
Tom Brake
I will give way shortly.
It might help the Committee if I set out in a little detail why the amendments in this group would not work effectively, along with some of the points we will need to address before Report. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross for his amendments, which in substance try to achieve what the Government want to do. However, in practice, there are some deficiencies in their wording, which means that we cannot simply adopt them now.
Tracey Crouch
It is quite clear from today’s discussions that there is still some confusion among charities and third sector organisations about some of the wording in the Bill. I am pleased to hear that the Minister is willing to reconsider the precise wording, but when he does, will he bear in mind the fact that other organisations are also concerned about the impact of the Bill? They include the excellent Liberal Democrat Voice, LabourList and ConservativeHome, which are equally unclear about whether part 2 applies to what they do.
Tom Brake
When the amendment is made public—we have made a commitment to do that—I am sure that those organisations will be effective at lobbying us, and no doubt 38 Degrees will also want to communicate its views. We will be informed about whether the different organisations consider our amendment to be sufficient to achieve what they are requesting.
Tom Brake
I am going to make some more progress.
The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross would alter clause 26, so that a third party would incur controlled expenditure only when it undertook activities that fall within part 1 of proposed schedule 8A to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, as set out in schedule 3 to the Bill, and are incurred “for election purposes”. It would also remove the definition of “for election purposes”, which means that “for election purposes” would be undefined in the legislation. I can see that the objective of the amendments is to maintain the expanded list of activities that would count as controlled expenditure, but to revert to the existing definition, as used for “election materials”.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Caerphilly seek to reinstate the current legislative arrangements. Recognised third parties would incur controlled expenditure only for “election materials” and only for certain activities, such as advertising and unsolicited materials addressed to electors. The Government believe that aligning the activities for which political parties and recognised third parties incur controlled expenditure is a sensible and reasonable objective. As I have said, this measure is advocated and supported by the Electoral Commission.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) referred to Hope not Hate. I agree with him that many of the things that people have said today will result from the Bill will simply not happen. However, given that Hope not Hate spent above the cap proposed by the Government, its spending would be constrained, so he touched on a genuine point. I will be meeting Hope not Hate to see whether we can address the concerns it might have. With organisations such as 38 Degrees and Hope not Hate increasingly switching to online campaigning activity, the costs of campaigning could go down, as it is much cheaper to campaign online via e-mail than by using postal mailshots. I will meet that organisation to discuss the matter in any case.
There is a potential gap in the regulatory regime when a recognised third party that undertakes public rallies and media events would only incur spending on election material made available to the public, whereas if that were done on behalf of a political party, the cost of the full range of activities would be captured. This objective should not be lost in the wider discussion relating to charities and voluntary organisations.
A further amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Caerphilly seeks to amend the definition of “election purposes” so that controlled expenditure would be incurred only by a recognised third party when it was its direct purpose. It is useful to highlight to the Committee that, under the currently regulatory regime, the test for “electoral materials” has a subjective and an objective element.
John Mann
Given what the Minister has just said, will he confirm that if a church or a synagogue were to organise an election hustings but chose explicitly to exclude a fascist candidate, that would be deemed to constitute electioneering against that candidate and would fall entirely within the remit of the Bill?
Tom Brake
That is the kind of issue that can be taken up with the Charity Commission and the Electoral Commission under existing legislation to establish whether that particular activity constituted electioneering. Nothing that we are proposing would affect that.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North seek, as previous amendments have done, to strike a balance between the reasonable intent of expanding the range of activities that incur controlled expenditure, and addressing concerns over the activities of charities and voluntary organisations being caught. Amendment 131 seeks to revise the definition of “for election purposes” as activity that can reasonably be regarded as promoting or procuring the success of a party or candidate. As the Government have indicated, we support the principle of that aim, and we will table amendments on Report which I hope will address that concern to the hon. Gentleman’s satisfaction.
A further amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman proposes that donations by a third party to a third party coalition group should count towards the donor third party’s spending limits. That seems to suggest that such a grouping would register as a separate, new third party and be subject to the wider controls of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The intention appears to be to repeal section 94(6) of PPERA. That provision stipulates that when two or more third parties work together as a group or coalition in pursuance of a common plan, the whole of the expenditure they incur as part of that coalition must count against each third party’s spending limit separately. However, the drafting of the amendment would not explicitly repeal section 94(6). The amendment also fails to consider that removing the existing provisions on acting in concert would remove a key anti-avoidance measure from PPERA. If total spending by a group of third parties acting as part of a common plan was not counted in full against each individual third party’s limits, it would allow third parties to form many coalitions on single issues in order to evade their spending limits. That would remove a vital safeguard from the integrity of the rules.
Angela Smith
Has the Minister considered the position of the Wildlife Trust in this context? It is not a single organisation but a coalition of trusts working up and down the country; it is a coalition of organisations working as a single body.
Tom Brake
Clearly we have. This comes down to the issue of whether the Wildlife Trust, which I suspect has members drawn from all parties and none, would as part of that coalition campaign in support of a political party or of a number of party candidates. If it did not intend to do so, it would not be covered by the legislation.
Mr Allen
In respect of the amendment I tabled in line with the sentiment of my Select Committee—very much along the lines of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso)—I am receiving reassurances from what the Minister said, so I am happy not press it to a Division. We all look forward to seeing the actual words that will give life to both those amendments.
Paul Flynn
Is it the message of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech that all the organisations and charities that are campaigning against the Bill should now intensify their campaigns until October in order to get something sensible from the Government on Report?
Tom Brake
Far be it from me to encourage or advise charities. I am sure they will continue to campaign if they feel there is a need, but my hope and expectation is that, once the NCVO and other organisations have seen the amendment that we intend to publish to address their concerns about a lack of clarity on the definitions, they will be satisfied. They might not be satisfied on other elements, but we will wait and see how they respond.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire would exclude the part 2 provisions from applying to elections to the Scottish Parliament without the assent of the Scottish Parliament. A number of Members have commented on the Bill’s impact on the different Administrations, so perhaps I need to clarify the issue. For the most part, the Bill is focused on UK parliamentary elections, and many of the provisions will have no effect on elections to the Scottish Parliament. Spending controls operate by regulated period, rather than by election, so seeking to exclude Scottish Parliament election spending in those areas where there are common rules would create an unworkable situation. For those reasons and others, these matters are reserved.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan would exclude charities registered in the Scottish charity register. The Electoral Commission has highlighted in its amendment briefing that, as a general point, it does not see a case for charities to be exempt from the rules regulating third parties, and the Government agree.
Dr Whiteford
Will the Minister outline exactly what discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations about this Bill in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? What discussions has he had with the charity commissions that regulate charities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Tom Brake
I am afraid I will have to write to the hon. Lady. She will be able to judge for herself whether she feels that the response is suitable.
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) intervened on the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and referred to future elections “imminent or otherwise”. I would like to clarify that that is an existing definition under PPERA, not something new that the Bill would introduce.
Lady Hermon
The Minister mentioned me, so I appreciate his giving me the opportunity to say that the Bill amends existing legislation, specifically the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That is what we are discussing. The fact that a term already exists in legislation does not make it good. I would like him to explain what is meant by a future election being “(imminent or otherwise)”. It is in that Act. What does it actually mean?
Tom Brake
I can assure the hon. Lady that, given that this term has been in legislation since 2000, it must be completely clear. I am going to move on.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I have met representatives of the voluntary sector to hear their concerns first hand. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and the hon. Members for Caerphilly, for Nottingham North, for Perth and North Perthshire and for Banff and Buchan that we will look closely at the drafting of the clause so that it is absolutely clear that we are not changing the current test. I apologise for repeating that. It must be the third, fourth or fifth time I have said it today, but I think it is important to make it clear to everybody what we are seeking to do. We believe that that would most simply be achieved, and the greatest reassurance would be given to campaigners and to the Electoral Commission, by a reversion to the situation set out by existing legislation, which defines controlled expenditure as expenditure
“which can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success”.
[Interruption.] I hear one of the Opposition spokesmen say that this is a shambles. I hoped to hear from him that it was, in fact, a case of the Government’s listening to the concerns expressed by charities and by Members on both sides of the House, and responding to them.
Wayne David
I thought that the Minister was in listening mode, but there we are. May I ask him one simple question? Does he intend to revise schedule 3?
Tom Brake
I think that we shall have to wait and see—[Interruption.] As I have said to the hon. Gentleman, what we are seeking to do is to address the concerns expressed by charities about the lack of clarity in the definitions. We have indicated that we will revert to terms very similar to those used in the original legislation. I am sure that if he genuinely wants to address the concerns that charities have expressed, he will welcome that. As I said, we will return to the issue on Report.
In new clause 9, the hon. Member for Caerphilly calls on the Government to undertake a post-legislative assessment. New clause 10 also calls for such an assessment. We conducted an impact assessment, which we consider to be adequate, but the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, may well wish to undertake a post-legislative assessment. The Leader of the House and I are both keen for post-legislative scrutiny to take place, and, in fact, would encourage Select Committees to carry out more of it than they do at present.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly referred to the amendment which would alter schedule 3 by appearing to narrow slightly the types of manifesto or documents that are included, omitting those which set out a party’s policies, but not the third party’s view of them. It would also remove the detail of the type of expenses that should be included in calculation of the amount of controlled expenditure associated with any manifesto or other document setting out the third party’s view on the policies of a party or candidate.
At present, recognised third parties incur controlled expenditure in connection with the production or publication of election material which is made available to the public. That will normally cover activities such as advertising, unsolicited material addressed to electors, and any manifesto or document setting out the policies, or the recognised third party’s view on the policies, of one or more parties or candidates.
While schedule 3 expands the range of activities that may constitute controlled expenditure, manifestos or policy documents—being election material—are already covered by existing law, and will remain so. They are simply described here in a different way. I therefore urge that the amendment is not pressed to a vote.
References have been made to press conferences and rallies. I know that the TUC has expressed fears that it will not be allowed to hold its rally. Our view is that the TUC would not promote parties or political candidates at the rally—especially given what is happening at the TUC conference today, where it could almost be argued that the TUC is supporting anything but the Labour party. [Interruption.]
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. There are too many private conversations and sedentary interventions. May we have a bit of peace and quiet so that we can hear the Minister?
Tom Brake
I suspect that the Committee is becoming restless, Sir Edward, and that I need to move on very, very promptly. Members will be pleased to learn that I have reached the penultimate page of my notes.
I have explained to the hon. Member for Caerphilly that staff costs are covered by the controlled expenditure rules that apply now to non-party organisations. Therefore, by extending the definition of controlled expenditure, we are requiring them to account for staff costs in the areas that are now also covered by controlled expenditure.
Tom Brake
I am not going to give way. I have made that point clear. I do not think the hon. Gentleman understood it, but I hope he does now.
The hon. Gentleman asked why staff costs are accounted for for non-party organisations but not for political parties. The role of political parties is entirely to campaign politically and therefore all the staff costs of any political party would have to be accounted for as part of controlled expenditure. I do not think he is advocating that.
I have come to the end of my notes. Having heard the firm undertakings the Government have given to engage with the NCVO, the Electoral Commission, the Opposition and a number of organisations that are going to respond to the amendment when it has been published in advance of Parliament returning, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross will think that we have done enough for him to withdraw his amendment.
John Thurso
This has been a substantial debate both in time and in content, and I am very grateful to all Members on both sides of the Committee who have contributed to it, and also for the widespread support—albeit some of it, I suspect, slightly unintended. The debate has raised an important question. I shall not refer to all the speeches, but I will make one point. I intervened on the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) to reiterate a point made by the Chair of the Select Committee: that so much of this is about perception. My amendments are, by returning to the status quo, designed to get rid of one of the perceptions. I am therefore very grateful for the undertaking the Minister has given, which is that the substance of my amendment will be included in the amendment he will bring forward on Report, that he will consult with the Opposition and the voluntary organisations, and that the amendment will be published sufficiently far ahead of our proceedings on Report to be properly considered by everybody.
I have never managed to get any concession out of a Minister before in my life and it is a lovely way to celebrate my 60th birthday, so I will accept. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Brake
In the hon. Gentleman’s last sentence he moved off the main point he was referring to, which was the cap. Did any of the organisations he just cited as having given evidence to his Committee say that they intended to spend more than £390,000 on supporting a political party in the 12 months before the general election?
Mr Allen
Give me the time to undertake accurate pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and I will give the right hon. Gentleman his answer.
What we should be doing in this place is adding to the rich tapestry of our democracy, not emaciating, frightening, chilling or putting a shadow over it. We should not be having people who fear engaging with their politicians and fear being part of our electoral process. We should have people who say, “We are welcome. Parliament is passing something that says, ‘Come in, we want to hear you. You are the big society. We want to listen to what you have to say.’” Are we saying that today? No, we are not, as we can see when we look at clause 27. This House should be sending out a much more positive message to those organisations, and to everybody else who wants to support and develop our democracy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for giving me the last few minutes in the debate. I concur with the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen)—he described exactly my feelings.
Charities and the Christian organisations tell me that the Bill will reduce the financial threshold at which a third-party campaigner must register with the Electoral Commission. Under the newly broadened range of activities, if a third party plans to spend £2,000 or more in the year leading up to the general election, it must register with the Electoral Commission. The Christian Institute and the Royal British Legion are concerned about that—the hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of charities that have the same concerns.
That is a unique problem for charities, many of which hold events at the Long Gallery in Stormont in the Northern Ireland Assembly for, for example, children in care, cancer awareness-raising or women’s rights, to name three of dozens of important issues. The events are costly to hold—it is highly possible that a charity will spend £2,000 or more in the year before an election without purposely seeking to enhance one candidate over the other. The charities set out to achieve a goal, but the Bill will disadvantage them greatly. I do not believe that the Government have acknowledged or understood the key issues Opposition Members have described.
Registering with the Electoral Commission at the low threshold will create disproportionate administrative burdens on charities and regulatory bodies. One point that has not been made in the Chamber is that the limit will apply to partnership working. For example, if two charities work together on a single-issue campaign and spend £2,500 each, they must both report expenditure of £5,000, which is nearly half of the limit of £11,000 in Northern Ireland.
The awful part of the measure is that, significantly, it will become a criminal offence to exceed the spending limit. The charities will not only be stopped from campaigning; they will be criminalised, which must be wrong. I cannot understand how the Government can say that that is not the case.
Other hon. Members have indicated that there will be changes to the Bill in the House of Lords. Let us pray for those changes. If those changes are made before we debate the Bill again in the House, we will have got what we wanted, but it is a pity that the Government cannot acknowledge that point.
Under the Bill, there is a significant possibility that the legitimate campaigning efforts of community and voluntary organisations will be unduly curtailed, and perhaps even criminalised, which undermines the efforts of charitable organisations to advocate for the most disadvantaged in our society. It could also prevent politicians from hearing those voices. Would it not be a terrible tragedy if we the politicians did not hear the voice of the charitable organisations that want us to campaign on their behalf to make life better for our constituents?
The Bill must not unduly impact the vital work of the community and the voluntary circle. I support hon. Members who are trying to do away with clause 27. I ask the Government to realise they are heading the wrong way.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before I call the Minister, I thank hon. Members for assisting in ensuring that we can hear the Minister reply to the debate before the votes.
Tom Brake
Thank you for assisting with that, Ms Primarolo.
I suspect that the plaudits—admittedly some were lukewarm—the Government Front Benchers received for shifting the ground on clause 26 will not be repeated in relation to clause 27. This is perhaps not the occasion to ask the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) to explain how it is that someone who went campaigning with his nanny has become such a fervent critic of the nanny state. We may have to delay that clarification.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
My amendment would not prohibit them from campaigning; it would merely mean that they could not be registered third parties. They would still be able to campaign.
Tom Brake
The fact remains that, from a Government perspective, we do not want to be in a position where organisations currently assisting the Government are not able to campaign in election campaigns.
Amendment 66 would amend clause 27 so that it no longer lowers the expenditure threshold that third parties may exceed only after they register with the Electoral Commission. Clause 27 proposes that those registration thresholds be set at £5,000 in England and £2,000 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Government are seeking to do that because we believe in greater transparency. We believe it is important that people understand who is campaigning in the course of election campaigns. It has been said, possibly by the Chair of the Select Committee, that that will have a huge impact on a very large number of charities. The Government’s assessment of how many extra charities will be included as a result of dropping the threshold is 30—just 30 charities would be affected. I accept that potentially 30 charities may be affected, but in practice the overwhelming majority of charities will not be affected.
Wayne David
If the objective is transparency, what is the logic in having a reduction to £5,000? Why not £4,000?
Tom Brake
In the 10 minutes that remain, I need to complete my remarks.
On amendment No. 66, upon registration with the Electoral Commission, third parties become entitled to incur controlled expenditure up to a higher limit and will have to comply with other regulatory requirements. The Bill lowers the thresholds in order to identify greater numbers of third parties that campaign in the political process. It is right to distinguish which organisations incur expenditure campaigning at elections and to ensure that their funds are fully accounted for. Reducing the registration thresholds, as proposed by the Bill, does not preclude third parties from campaigning. This is a point that, I am afraid, a number of Members have made: that a requirement simply to register will stop organisations campaigning. That is not so. The requirement to register will mean that the expenditure that they can incur is controlled. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 165 proposes that until the Electoral Commission has undertaken an assessment of the impact of clause 27 on political parties and on third parties and that report is laid before Parliament, the provisions of clause 27 may not come into effect. I have been asked why we have settled on the cap. Clause 27 amends the third party limits for controlled expenditure. These limits would be the equivalent of 2% of the maximum campaign expenditure limit for political parties. For third party campaigning across the UK, this would be £390,000. As hon. Members will be aware, currently the level at which it is set does not cover or catch any of the third party organisations.
Setting a cap at £390,000 would, as I stated earlier, capture two organisations that currently spend slightly above that cap. We think that that would, first, provide equality of arms in relation to the examples to which the Chair of the Select committee referred—the League Against Cruel Sports and the Countryside Alliance. It would ensure that one organisation campaigning in favour of something could not be heavily outgunned financially by another campaigning on the opposite side of the argument.
If at the next general election, the threshold were set where it is currently and the 30 organisations that registered all spent at their current limit—the £1 million, or just under, that they are allowed to spend nationally—they would have been able to outspend, very heavily, each of the political parties. Our view is that election campaigns are about political parties fighting and setting out their stalls, with, of course, third party organisations campaigning as well, but it should in principle be a battle between political parties.
Clause 27 also lowers the expenditure thresholds at which the third parties must register with the Electoral Commission: the thresholds are set at £5,000 in England and £2,000 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As I stated, the Government’s assessment is that that would affect a total of 30 additional non-party organisations, not charities, as I stated earlier. Thirty additional non-party organisations might be caught by the lower threshold. The Government have already published an impact assessment on the provisions of the Bill, which considers the impact of the lowered registration threshold. It assessed that only a small number of third parties would be required to register and become subject to the regulatory framework. This will not create new administrative burdens for already registered third parties but, as I stated, may affect 30 additional non-party organisations.
The impact assessment also considered the impact of the lower spending limits. At the last general election, the largest 10% of third parties spent more than the remaining 90% put together. As I stated, only two organisations spent more than the new lowered limits that the Bill proposes. That demonstrates that the current spending limit is so high as to be ineffectual.
The Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee listed a range of organisations that he said gave evidence to his Committee. I asked him whether any of them had told him in their evidence that the Government’s proposed cap of £390,000 would affect their ability to campaign politically during the next general election, and he did not respond. I suspect that he did not respond because none of them intended to spend that much. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he is about to tell me which of those organisations said they would spend above £390,000.
Mr Allen
I am surprised that the Deputy Leader of the House wants to abdicate the role that Her Majesty’s Government have given to him, but I will make it clear again. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee will pick up his remit, if he cannot do it himself. If the Government give us the time to do our pre-legislative scrutiny—time that we asked for—instead of putting a Bill before the House one day before the recess and taking Second Reading one day after, we will do that job and many others.
Tom Brake
Having given the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee a second opportunity to state which organisations would be affected, I am afraid to say that he is unable to do so. I regret that. The impact assessment has been carefully prepared. Requiring the Electoral Commission to undertake another assessment is unnecessary, particularly if it would prevent a key provision of the Bill from being enacted before then. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.
Concerns have been expressed about the cap in the Bill. We have set out why we think a national cap of £390,000 is appropriate. It would have affected only two organisations in the last general election. We have also set out why we believe that lowering the registration threshold to £5,000 would lead to greater transparency. People would be able to get more information about which organisations were campaigning in a general election. I therefore hope that the amendments in this grouping will not be pressed to a vote.