Article 50

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are very conscious of the arrangements in the Belfast agreement and of the practical issues that will arise as a result of the UK leaving the European Union because of the land border with the Republic of Ireland. We are also very conscious of the work taking place across the border, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, on a whole variety of areas. That is why we are working very closely with the Republic of Ireland Government to ensure that we are able to preserve the developments that have taken place and the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland. We recognise the importance of the Belfast agreement in the peace process and the future of Northern Ireland.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

It is a great honour indeed not to be the last Member on the Government Benches to be called, Mr Speaker.

Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in thanking all those who have done so much to increase the prosperity and liberty of the European continent over the past 40 years? On this day, of all days, we should remember that the change we have seen on the continent is so great that the President of the European Union is a man born under tyranny who now leads an impressive Union, which we have chosen to leave. Like the great democrat he is, he has taken the sovereign will of the British people quietly and sensibly, and he is working with our Government to ensure that the Prime Minister can deliver exactly what the people voted for. Will my right hon. Friend join me in hoping that the tone of friendship she has demonstrated today in her statement and in her letter, and that President Tusk has demonstrated in his reception of it, will continue through both negotiating teams and all Ministers?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree. As we look at the negotiation, it is important that at every level and in every part of those negotiations we maintain a constructive and positive approach. That is the best way of getting the best possible agreement at the end.

Advisory Committee on Business Appointments/Ministerial Code

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

It is not for me to make that determination; it is for the independent advisory committee to do so, and it will make a recommendation to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants me to say something controversial, but it would be wrong to undermine the process in the committee that is under way and to prejudice its decision by saying one thing or another.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Many people in this House have second jobs, including you, Mr Speaker. Your second job is obviously being Speaker of this House, and you do it assiduously, while being able to serve your constituents. Will the Minister help me to understand which jobs would be considered acceptable by the Government or another statutory body, as many people write books, or own land or property? Should they therefore sell everything into monastic simplicity and become a political class, or should they represent the economy and the people of this country by maintaining an intact body of effort with other people?

[Ben Gummer]

I congratulate—[Interruption.]

European Council

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am doing nothing of the sort. The hon. Gentleman needs to recognise that there is a difference between access to the single market, protecting our ability to operate within the single market, and membership of the single market. Membership of the single market means accepting free movement, accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and, effectively, remaining a member of the European Union. We have voted to leave the European Union, and that is what we will be doing.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend needs no lessons in her primary duty, which is the defence of this great realm. I welcome enormously the efforts she has made with our European partners to work together to counter the Russian threat that is sadly growing in the east. Will she please comment a little on how the threat would affect the United Kingdom should parts of our own great United Kingdom secede from the Union? What vulnerabilities would that put into our defence?

[The Prime Minister]

It is right that we are looking very carefully at the impact that the activity of Russia and others can have across the European Union, but it is also right that we are stronger as a United Kingdom in our collective defence and that every part of the United Kingdom benefits from being part of the UK through our collective defence and security against crime and terrorism.

Informal European Council

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

What I set out in the Lancaster House speech were my 12 objectives for the negotiations. Within that was a new free trade agreement with the European Union and a belief that we have every opportunity and every possibility of getting the arrangement that we want for the future strength of the UK economy. What I also said very clearly was that we would not be wanting to sign up to a bad deal for the UK. I think the UK public want to hear from their Prime Minister that we are not willing to sign up to a bad deal, and will make every effort and expect to get the best deal possible for the United Kingdom.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Was the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling present at the start of the statement?

[Tom Tugendhat]

Absolutely.

[Mr Speaker]

And he has remained throughout?

[Tom Tugendhat]

Absolutely, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Then he may speak.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK is absolutely at the heart of Europe in defence terms? Did she get agreement from partners at the European Council that our alliance with countries such as Denmark and Estonia very much demonstrates that we are far more influential in some of the other areas of European policy than is often recognised?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Of course, the role that the UK plays in the defence of Europe as a whole is recognised widely across Europe, and I have been very clear that we want to continue to co-operate on matters such as defence with our European allies once we have left the EU.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (James Brokenshire)]

I know that the House will join me in condemning the despicable shooting of a police officer in north Belfast on Sunday 22 January. Our thoughts are with the injured officer, who remains in hospital, his family and colleagues.

My officials and I have regular discussions with the Justice Minister, the Chief Constable, and partners as we work to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe and secure.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My right hon. Friend will have the support of the whole House when he speaks so warmly of the police officer who was so brutally attacked only recently. I know the Secretary of State is working closely with the intelligence services, the military and the police to ensure security in the region. Will he please tell me a little more about what he is doing to take forward the security of an important part of the United Kingdom?

[James Brokenshire]

I commend the work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Security Service and other agencies to keep Northern Ireland safe. The level of threat in Northern Ireland is severe, as that appalling incident underlines. I will continue to work with all partners to secure the safe Northern Ireland we want. I spoke to the Chief Constable on that issue only this morning. [Interruption.]

UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak in a debate on one of the most essential issues that the House could discuss. This is not about a variation in tax policy that could be reversed or a change in social norms that will evolve with time; it is about the ultimate security of our nation in the coming century. This is not a time for games or minor interventions on questions of no relevance. It is time for a debate about the security of our state, the strategy of the UK and her place in the world.

I am proud to stand here, on the Conservative Benches, and look across at the Labour Benches and know that there are many people who value the UK—our freedom, our sovereignty, our liberty, our right to self-determination. I understand that they require an ultimate guarantee. We all know the truly horrific nature of these weapons, but it is through their horror and threat that they work. If they were not so horrific or terrible, the deterrent would not be so complete. We have seen time and again that the awfulness of weaponry demands a graduated response. When we see the initial use of force, we see the armaments of the infantryman and the armaments of small aircraft. We have seen this in Europe in the past century—even in the years since the second world war: we have seen Kosovo, we have seen Ukraine, we have seen threats to our close allies in Estonia.

We see these things, however, because the weapons used are controllable and measurable; they are, to use that awful phrase, small arms. However, the capability and purpose of the nuclear deterrent lies in its not being so measurable or controllable. It is truly horrific; and in that, it works. It works not because of its first-strike capability—any fool can have a first-strike capability—but in the second strike. It works not as a weapon of aggression but only as a post mortem weapon. It is a weapon that assures your enemy that, no matter what they have done to you, you can still respond. It is the ultimate guarantee of our sovereignty and security.

It is astonishing that, having just had a referendum in which we discussed the sovereignty and control of our nation, some people are looking to hand it over and diminish it, even though we know what counts. I therefore welcome what the Prime Minister said today. When asked if she would consider using the weapon, she said yes. She gave the clarity that deterrence requires and showed the strength that will make her a fine Prime Minister. It is that strength and clarity, around the most horrific of all weapons systems, that will maintain our sovereignty and freedom.

I have heard people ask today about the UK’s place in the world. Our place is at the top table, guaranteeing the international order and the freedoms and liberties of our friends. When I hear talk of unilateral disarmament and appeasement, I hear talk not of honour and morality but of dishonour and immorality. It is to abandon our position and our friends to say that dictators and despots should keep their weapons of destruction and nuclear power but that democrats should abandon the ability to defend themselves and their friends. That is unacceptable. The spectrum of defence, from the infantryman to the nuclear missile, is intertwined, is one, is blended. To unpick or divide is to disarm even the infantryman at the front. It is wrong, therefore, to talk of reducing spend on nuclear weapons and a lie to say that the money would be better spent on conventional weapons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course I agree with that; I think that is a fact of history that is generally recognised. We have heard many powerful speeches—in particular those by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat)—making the case for the independent nuclear deterrent, but I say to my colleagues who made those powerful speeches that, fair enough, we are going to have an independent nuclear deterrent, but it is not good enough to say that the cost is not an issue. I am looking at this purely as a longstanding member of the Public Accounts Committee, and I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) that a total cost of £31 billion plus a contingency of £10.6 billion plus an ongoing cost of 6% of the defence budget is a lot of money, and we must constantly probe the Government, question them and ask whether we are getting good value for money. I accept the arguments and I have read the reports, and I know all the alternatives have problems, but we simply cannot give a blank cheque to the military-industrial complex; we cannot, as good parliamentarians concerned with good value for money, stop questioning British Aerospace and other providers all over the country on whether they are providing good value for money.

The cross-party Trident commission talked about three possible threats: the re-emergence of a cold war-style scenario; an emerging new nuclear power engaging in strategic competition with the UK; or a rogue state or terrorist group engaging in an asymmetric attack against the UK. The commission found that there were questions about whether this particular system—which is what I am talking about; I am not talking about arguments in favour of an independent nuclear deterrent—would be viable against these threats, so we must require the Secretary of State and the MOD to go on answering these questions.

I am probably not making myself popular with Members on either side of the House who have very strong views, but when I came to this place one of the first ways I irritated a sitting Prime Minister—Mrs Thatcher—was to team up with David Heathcoat-Amory and question whether we needed a ballistic missile system and whether Cruise missiles would not be a viable alternative. I know that those who sit on the Defence Committee, who will know much more about defence, have dismissed this, but in recent years the American Government have converted four of their ballistic missile-carrying submarines into submarines that carry Cruise missiles.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on the cost, and he is absolutely right of course that we must keep costs under review and make sure that BAE and others deliver on time and on budget, but on the question of Cruise missiles, is there not a danger that were we to nuclear-arm Cruise missiles, any Cruise attack would have to be seen as a nuclear attack and therefore to be responded to in kind? Is there not a danger that Cruise missiles would up the ante, rather than lower it?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a powerful point, and I am not taking an absolutist position. I know that many Members do want to take an absolutist position on this, but I am not suggesting today that Cruise missiles are the answer, and my hon. Friend made the powerful point that the whole reason behind our independent nuclear deterrent is that it is not a system of first resort; that is what he was arguing, and he made that point again in that intervention. What I am trying to argue is that when our defence spending is so tightly constrained, whatever the arguments—and they are very powerful arguments—in favour of an independent nuclear deterrent, we have to keep questioning the Government on what was the source-argument for having a ballistic system of massive power designed to penetrate hugely powerful defences around Moscow, because that is not the threat we face today from either low-grade rogue states or terrorist movements.

I will be voting with the Government tonight, but I will not be handing them a blank cheque. I will be continuing to ask for value for money, and I believe every Member of the House should do the same.

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I do agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I said in my statement that I thought there were lessons to learn but also lessons not to learn, and the lesson not to learn is that intervention is always wrong. There are occasions when it is right to intervene, because it is in the interests of our national security or because we are trying to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. We should be very clear about the fact that there have been occasions when we have not intervened and when we have seen almost as much chaos and difficulty as we are seeing in Syria.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, but will he join me in expressing slight concern not only about the shape of the centre of government that was there at the time of the Blair Government, but about the Departments that supported it? The top of the pyramid cannot work unless the supporting pillars are in place. I have only read the executive summary, so I cannot comment in detail, but it seems clear to me that parts of the Ministry of Defence, including the chiefs of staff, were not delivering the advice that the Government needed, and that elements of the Foreign Office had succumbed to a form of group-think that leaves me deeply concerned about the structure and the advice that are available to Governments..

[The Prime Minister]

I am going to hesitate before replying to my hon. Friend, because there is not a huge amount about that in the executive summary of the Iraq inquiry. I think we will probably have to dive into the volumes to see exactly what Sir John has to say about advice from the MOD, advice from the Foreign Office, how much group-think there genuinely was, and all the rest of it. So I would hesitate. I think we need to study the report, and then we can discuss the matter during next week’s debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am glad the right hon. Gentleman takes the English pronunciation of Farage, rather than the poncey, foreign-sounding one that he seems to prefer—a thoroughly good thing. I think we should listen to our friends and our allies. Looking around the world, it is hard to find the leader of a country who wishes us well who wants us to do other than stay inside a reformed European Union.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Q5. The new ISAs announced in this year’s Budget are very welcome. They will help people to save for homes and for retirement. As my right hon. Friend will have seen in this morning’s City AM, hidden fees can strip as much as a third off the gains a pension could make over a lifetime. What are the Government doing to ensure that firms investing people’s hard-earned savings reveal all the fees they charge, so that people know exactly what they will pay and can choose the investment that is best for them?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has fought a long campaign on this—and rightly so. One of the things that sap people’s enthusiasm for investing in savings products is a sense that they do not understand the fees and charges, and do not know how much they will get. Since last April, we have ensured that trustees of defined contribution pension schemes report charges levied on members. The Financial Conduct Authority is committed to making regulations with us during this Parliament to require the publication of more costs and charges. We have given ourselves the legal duty to do so, but I am sure he will push us all the way to make sure it happens.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I ask the House’s indulgence to speak about somebody who has done an amazing amount for charities. I mean Mr Henry Worsley, a colleague of mine in the armed forces—I served alongside him in Afghanistan—who sadly lost his life recently in southern Chile, having walked the most amazing route across Antarctica, only to die two days before reaching his goal. Such people set the example for our charitable sector and push the field that bit further.

In looking after the most vulnerable, needy and lonely, our charitable sector goes that much further than our state can ever go or society imagined possible. It is right that our charitable sector fills that gap. The state cannot adapt, in so many legion ways, to fill the niches, nooks and crannies left by the loneliness, the broken homes, the vulnerabilities of service personnel or the disabled, or whatever the area covered by the charity that somebody’s interest falls upon. It is great that today we are not only recognising the importance of the charitable sector, but welcoming changes that will keep it on a safe footing, on a basis of trust and understanding across England and Wales—but with a model that I hope will be copied in Northern Ireland and Scotland—because charities fulfil that role. Charities place what is best upon us.

If I may, I would like to finish very briefly with one last tribute to Henry, my friend. He really did always go that little bit further. He was the pilgrim; he went beyond the blue mountain barred with snow. Indeed, although in his last podcast he said that his summit was just out of reach, it is true now that he has taken the golden road to Samarkand. That poem would have been well known by members of his regiment, and I know that we are all thinking of his family and his friends today. I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to him in this House.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

May I begin by congratulating you, Mr Hamilton, on your promotion to a shadow foreign affairs post? I know that you will put your enormous experience to good use on behalf of your party.

Most people will be familiar with the issues surrounding charitable fundraising by large charities that surfaced last summer, and which I referred to in some detail in relation to clause 14. As I said, I accepted Sir Stuart Etherington’s recommendation to give charities a final chance to make the self-regulation of fundraising work. The new system has my complete support, and the public are eager to see improved fundraising and signs that charities are listening to and acting on their concerns. It is now up to the sector to make the improved system of self-regulation work in a timely and effective manner, and I will keep a close eye on the progress being made.

Charities rely on the generous charitable giving and voluntary work of the British public and so need to deliver on the public’s expectations. Otherwise, we must be prepared to step in and act. I do not want to have to do that, but I want to be prepared in case it becomes necessary. Public trust and confidence in charities has already been rocked because of the poor practice uncovered last summer. In a survey last year, only 48% of people—less than half—said that they trusted charities. A more recent survey found that 76% of the public wanted tougher regulation of charity fundraising. We cannot allow further damage to public trust, which is why it is imperative that we have the right tools to act if it becomes clear that the new system is not sufficiently supported by charities. For that reason, I propose an amendment, through new clause 7, to the existing reserve powers in the Charities Act 1992. This will act as a safeguard should self-regulation fail.

Proposed new section 64B of the 1992 Act will extend existing powers in relation to fundraising regulation to compel charities to comply with the requirements and guidance imposed by the fundraising regulator. It will also allow the Government to require charities to be registered with a body for the purpose of regulating charitable fundraising. Under this provision, Ministers will have the discretion to mandate with the regulation of charity fundraising any body whose principal function appears to be in line with that purpose. The provision makes it clear that that may not be a body maintained out of money provided by Parliament. That will be the case with the new fundraising regulator currently being established by Lord Grade of Yarmouth, the interim chair, and Stephen Dunmore, the interim chief executive, which will be funded by the sector itself.

Most of the largest charities have already committed to registering with the new body once it is established, and I am sure that any charity showing initiative and commitment in that way will be a welcome sign to both the public and Parliament. However, should any charities be found to be dragging their heels, this power could be used to compel them to register with the fundraising regulator. It could be used as a first statutory step should charities prove insufficiently proactive in their support of the new self-regulatory system.

Self-regulation will not work if charities decide to wait and see what the finished system looks like before pledging their support. It would be starved of both the necessary mandate and the financial resources even to begin its work. This power will therefore be a vital safeguard to ensure that self-regulation is given a proper chance to succeed. If needed, the power would further act as an early warning sign to charities, flagging it up to them that they are falling behind the expectations that the public, Parliament and the Government have of what is necessary to make self-regulation work. I would challenge any fundraising charities and, in particular, large, sector-leading charities that did not sign up to the new self-regulator to consider their obligation to safeguard the public and their trust in charities more generally. It would certainly be a poor reflection on what is largely a dedicated, compassionate and well-run sector if the Government were forced to invoke this power. However, I will not hesitate to do so if that becomes necessary.

The new clause also introduces proposed new section 64C into the 1992 Act. The new section extends the existing reserve power to regulate fundraising, to enable the Government to confer the function of regulating charitable fundraising on the Charity Commission. That is a significant power, which would change fundraising regulation completely.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

For clarity, may I ask a brief question on the Minister’s slightly earlier point, which he has just moved on from? Is it only charities that will have to opt in, or will other organisations have to?

[Mr Wilson]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important question. Charities—particularly education charities—rely on the special relationship they have with their membership. The data protection legislation that has just been passed in Europe means that all sectors will need to move to an opt-in system in the next 18 to 24 months. That means that any organisation will require unambiguous and affirmative consent before being able to process any individual’s data. Workarounds such as assumed consent or pre-ticked boxes will simply no longer be good enough. A change is therefore coming, and it will affect all sectors, not simply the one we are discussing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I thank the Minister for his intervention but, as I will say, the sector has made it clear that it feels stifled, particularly in the lead up to general elections, when there are serious debates about the future of Government policy. That is what this new clause seeks to prevent.

The lobbying rules affect charities because of their non-partisan campaigning activity. Organisations can campaign for changes to law or policy where such a change would support their charitable objectives. Although under charity law campaigning cannot be the continuing or sole activity of a charity, it is an entirely legitimate activity for charities to pursue. Under the current rules of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, some of that activity is already regulated by the Electoral Commission when an organisation has been deemed to produce election material. For many charities and voluntary organisations, raising awareness of the issues affecting the people and causes they support is a routine and important part of their work and central to their charitable objectives.

In a letter leading up to the general election last year, more than 160 signatories from the charitable sector, including Save the Children, the Salvation Army, Oxfam, Greenpeace, Age UK and Amnesty International, said that the legislation should be scrapped and that it is having a “chilling effect” on charities’ work.

[Tom Tugendhat]

One of the things the hon. Lady is talking about is the identification of political campaigning, particularly in the run-up to an election, and I understand why she feels that charities should have the right to campaign on issues about which they feel passionately. However, I am uncomfortable that taxpayer-funded bodies, which, let us face it, is exactly what charities are—the tax break means that the taxpayer is paying for this—are paying for a revolving door of special advisers and press advisers from political parties, notably one political party, to come back, take Government money and lobby the Government. I find it absolutely extraordinary that we are asking the British public to pay to be lobbied on their own behalf. It is very odd.

[Anna Turley]

That logic refutes the need for any special advisers, who are of course paid by the public purse to implement a political manifesto.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point and to the previous point before taking the next intervention. There has been a commission report. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Stafford takes the view that there was no difference in the last election, but there is evidence to suggest that charities felt that the Act has impeded the way they behave. I will talk about that further a bit later, if I may, but I will take the next intervention now.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Member is being extremely generous in giving way. Forgive me, but I come back to the simple point that the taxation element of this is really important. Regarding the element that comes from the taxpayer—the 25%, the gift aid, or whatever it happens to be—that break is money taken by force. Let us not forget what it is; tax is money taken by force. It is not a charitable gift and it is not an extra donation; it is money taken by force from people across our nation, and it is absolutely essential that we do not force people to support one political party or another. It is up to people themselves, because it is a free association and a free choice to support a political party, a campaign or perhaps an issue. However, she seems to be calling for charities to be enabled to use that money for political lobbying, which has to be wrong.

[Anna Turley]

I do not understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, because gift aid is made automatically to charities that people may or may not support. A taxpayer may be paying gift aid to a charity whose aims and objectives they may not support. That is the logic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. When people support a charity—whatever the issue, whether it is cancer treatment or supporting the elderly to have a dignified older age—they want to see it making a difference, and that is in everything, from campaigning and having a loud voice nationally to seeking to secure changes to our society.

[Tom Tugendhat]

rose—

[Anna Turley]

I am going to make some progress, if I may—I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

The new clause seeks to prevent what the shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), described last month as

“a fundamentally illiberal Government that railroads proposals through Parliament without debate and seeks to limit scrutiny whenever and wherever possible”.

It is the same mind-set that regards

“the FOI Act…as an irritant and the Human Rights Act…as nothing but an inconvenience”

and that goes in for

“squeezing the finances of the political parties who oppose you becomes not just acceptable but desirable.”

The lobbying Act was a part of that fundamentally illiberal approach and an attempt to gag charities. It came from the same fear of public scrutiny and accountability. The new clause seeks to protect that important freedom.

In 2010, the coalition agreement promised that the Government would

“throw open the doors of public bodies, to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account.”

How much, it seems, has changed, yet the Government still seek to ensure that charities are accountable—and rightly so. From today’s papers we can see that they are considering extending the Freedom of Information Act to charities that deliver public services. I would be happy to extend the Bill process if the Government wish to table further amendments to that end, so that we may have that discussion. Transparency, accountability and freedom to challenge must work both ways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton. I add my voice to those congratulating you on your new role in the shadow foreign affairs team. I am sure your experience will be greatly appreciated throughout the whole House.

I confess to feeling some responsibility for this discussion. The question we should always ask when debating any potential law is: what is the problem we are trying to fix? I understand the problem the new clause is trying to address. It is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar described, the chilling effect that was undoubtedly caused by the gagging law passed by the previous Parliament. I will talk about that chilling effect shortly, but it is worth remembering why that gagging law was passed in the first place. It was, of course, because some very foolish Liberal Democrat MPs and a few Conservatives made the decision prior to the 2010 general election to sign a pledge in a Committee Room down the corridor with me, as president of the National Union of Students, that clearly stated, “I will vote against any increase in tuition fees and will campaign for a fairer funding system.”

The irony was that, prior to the general election, I was hauled in by members of the Liberal Democrat party leadership, who subsequently joined the Cabinet, to explain why the NUS had gone so soft and was not demanding abolition of all fees in line with Liberal Democrat policy. That would have been laughable in itself, given subsequent events, were it not for the fact that previously, as leader of the NUS, I was dragged up to a particularly dreary Liberal Democrat spring conference at Harrogate expecting to endorse its new graduate tax policy as the “Labour” president of the NUS. Of course, it was never a party political role—[Laughter]—but nevertheless, there I was, ready to endorse the Liberal Democrat graduate tax policy, which never came to fruition.

That is an important example because, even as president of the National Union of Students, which is arguably one of the most small “p” political charities where candidates stand on political tickets—I was elected as a Labour president of the NUS—there was never any doubt in my mind about who I was accountable to and who I served. I was elected first and foremost—in fact, only—to serve students. If that meant going up to a wet and windy Liberal Democrat spring conference to stand alongside its leader and endorse a policy that, sadly, did not come to pass, I was prepared to do it.

In the same way, I told Lord Mandelson, when he was Business Secretary, that unless there was student representation on the Browne review, he would find me and 100 other student union presidents outside the Business Department holding up signs saying, “Students let down by Labour”. The point is that, whoever is in government, if sometimes they take decisions that impact on beneficiaries or communities that we serve under the auspices of our charitable objectives, we must have the muscle to hold their feet to the fire.

That happens today to Labour politicians up and down the country, whether it is the Labour-led Welsh Assembly Government or Labour in local government. Look at the work that the Refugee and Migrant Forum of Essex and London does. It threatened to take the Government to court over their terrible “go home” vans and was prepared to turn up at its local Labour council to say it must do more to support refugees and migrants.

The Ilford Salvation Army does a load of great work on homelessness, and I want it not just to provide for homeless people with direct provision, but to turn up at the door of their local councillors or Members of Parliament asking them to explain why public policy is having a detrimental impact on those people and how it needs to change.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for the ability of charities to explain themselves, and I fully support that. Will he point to the part of the Bill or any element of it which prevents that and therefore creates the need for the words “political campaigning”, not just campaigning on issues?

[Wes Streeting]

We are debating new clause 2. Members can see it but, for the benefit of those watching, let me point out that I do not see any reference in it to party political campaigning. It would simply enshrine in legislation the right of charities to undertake political activity. That is important, because a chilling effect followed the gagging law, which had a number of practical implications. For example, charities spent ridiculous amounts of time with spreadsheets trying to calculate their national spend versus constituency spend, and whether they were close to the spending limits and whether that would affect their collaboration with other charities.

I thought the Conservatives were the party that wanted to scrap red tape, yet they have generated a whole load of red tape for voluntary sector organisations whose funds would be better spent on helping their beneficiaries through either direct service provision or lobbying and campaigning. Students unions at the last general election were afraid to hold hustings events. Of course they should do that—it is nonsense that they should not hold those events. The gagging law had a chilling impact.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous in giving way. I do not know about his hustings events, but most of mine were held in churches, which are almost by definition charities. The number of charities that were afraid to hold hustings in my community was zero, so I am baffled as to why he feels that some were afraid about that.

[Wes Streeting]

I am simply citing the representations I have had from my old colleagues at the National Union of Students about the impacts of the gagging law. It is important to put that forward. I was the head of a charity at not one but two general elections. First, I was president of my university’s students union back in 2004, where our “Get out the vote” campaign in Cambridge undoubtedly contributed to the loss of an excellent Labour MP, in the form of Anne Campbell—she had abstained on the Second Reading of the Higher Education Act 2004, which I am sure contributed to that. Secondly, during the 2010 general election, I was president of the NUS.

At that time, charities were well constrained from party political activity and endorsing political parties, and there is unlikely to be a single charity campaigner in the country who cannot cite CC9 of the Charity Commission’s guidance chapter and verse, which is clear about the restrictions on charities in party political campaigning. The gagging law passed in the previous Parliament was a solution in need of a problem. There were no previous problems; it was just that the Liberal Democrats got scared of the consequences. Alas, even the gagging law could not save them.

Finally, on the general attitude to the voluntary sector’s political representation and campaigning, too many Members of Parliament seem to be happy to turn up and have photographs with guide dogs at party conferences, pop along to their local Barnardo’s outreach and have photographs with service users and be there for photographs, leaflets and press releases, yet when it comes to being confronted with the consequences of the decisions this place has made under successive Governments, they do not like the hard truths.

We need to think about the voluntary sector’s reach and its broad focus on speaking up for and serving the most disadvantaged in our society—people who do not know how to find their way into the corridors of power. Incidentally, those in the sector are not like the many commercial organisations that have also had significant amounts of public money, but which can none the less exercise their muscle in Committees, in the corridors in this place and on the Floor of the House. These are charities that speak up for some of the most dispossessed and disadvantaged in our society, and when they say that the gagging law has had a chilling effect, it is incumbent on us to listen and to take this simple, uncontroversial measure to ensure that every charity knows that they are empowered to make political representations to speak truth to power on behalf of their beneficiaries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wilson]

I simply do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the law as it stands, because charities can and do campaign on policy and political issues today. Members of my party are particularly charitable people, although they are not charities themselves, and if, on the basis of promoting freedom of speech, they want to invite people to come and speak in their constituency, they should be free to do so.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Speakers on both sides of the Committee have been extremely generous in giving way, so I will be as brief as I can. Will the Minister identify that there is a difference between executing Government policy, such as free schools, and lobbying to achieve political party aims? They are two separate things. Will he also identify that there is a difference between freedom of speech for individuals, which we all enjoy in these islands, thank God, and have done for many hundreds of years, and the freedom of organisations that receive taxpayers’ money—money taken by force, I remind the Committee —to lobby in a different way? The two are necessarily different.

[Mr Wilson]

My hon. Friend makes the points powerfully. He has returned a number of times to a point that is relevant and of huge public interest: charities should not use Government funding for political activity. That should be clear from the terms and conditions attached to any Government funding of a particular charity. For political activity, charities can use other funding, such as voluntary donations or earned income from trading. I understand what he says, and I have set out clearly the Government’s view .

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wilson]

Whatever time of year it is. The hon. Gentleman singles out elections. We have Lord Hodgson looking at this. The Charity Commission has looked at the incidents that took place during elections. So far, I have seen no evidence of any chilling effect, and I await Lord Hodgson’s report to support the hon. Gentleman’s case.

Attempting to put into statute a provision of case law risks changing the boundaries of what is permitted. It just is not feasible to encapsulate all the nuances of case law in a simple single statutory provision. We have already explored those risks in the context of clause 9 and the protection of charity assets, and it would be no different here.

It is not clear whether new clause 2 would permit charities to support political parties, for example, by allowing charities to undertake political campaigning without defining exactly what that means. Given our earlier conversation about the Badger Trust, I think even the hon. Member for Redcar is not clear about what constitutes political campaigning and what does not. The new clause is just one example of where a well meaning attempt to codify case law in a statutory provision can go badly wrong, resulting in potentially significant unintended consequences.

There is also a risk that the new clause would permit charities to overstep the current mark in another way: under the law as it stands, charities cannot engage in campaigning to such an extent that it calls into question their charitable status. If the only thing the organisation does is non-party political campaigning, one would question whether it is an organisation with political rather than charitable purposes. That is already encompassed in case law, but it is not clear to me whether new clause 2 would encompass that restriction, potentially opening up charitable status to political organisations. That would clearly damage public trust in charities, which I am sure the hon. Lady does not intend.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Forgive me for intervening once more, but on that point, does the Minister believe that it would be wise for charities to identify how much they spend on their core activity and how much on campaigning?

[Mr Wilson]

My hon. Friend raises a question of enormous public interest. Only last year the Charity Commission looked at whether charities should be required to submit details of their campaigning spend as part of their annual return process, details of which would have been published on the register of charities. The commission concluded that such a requirement would create a significant amount of work for charities and decided not to include that in the annual return for 2015. However, the commission did note the huge level of public interest in the issue and said it would look at the matter again. I welcome that and encourage the commission to keep the matter under review. I hope that clearly answers my hon. Friend’s question.

Even in the unlikely event that the boundaries of law were not shifted by an attempt at statutory definition, one would still expect legal challenges to test whether the law had in fact changed, by design or otherwise. There is further risk in putting this in the Bill since it would risk politicising charities’ right to campaign. Ministers, rather than the independent regulator and the courts, would be responsible for the provision, which could leave it open to political interference over time.

I hope the Committee will agree that one advantage of case law provision is that it is in the hands of an independent regulator and the courts and is not subject to ministerial intervention. As I said, my noble Friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts is currently reviewing evidence of the impact of 2014 Act on charities and other organisations in the run-up to the election. I understand his report is expected reasonably soon, and I look forward to seeing the findings and whether there are lessons to be learned.

I also point the Committee to the Charity Commission’s recent publication of the cases it investigated in the run-up to the 2015 general election. From looking at those cases, one gets a good impression of the independent regulator properly exercising its regulatory role in this area in a very proportionate way.

I hope that I have given the reassurances that Opposition Members seek about charities’ right to speak out for their beneficiaries, while cautioning against the dangers of statutory provision, and hope they will not press the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the Minister’s intervention. I am a realist and a pragmatist in all things. I recognise the huge contribution made to this country by many independent schools, faith schools and other schools that would not necessarily be my first choice for my children. I am not advocating their abolition, but rather that they should deliver over and above what they currently do and justify taxpayers’ money supporting them through their charitable status.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Lady is making some interesting points, and it might surprise her to know that I do not disagree with a lot of them. The best independent schools do exactly what the Bill proposes. Tonbridge School in my constituency does exactly that. Lord Moynihan is a very wise man, because he sends his children to Tonbridge School and appreciates what really good independent schools can, and indeed should, do.

I would argue strongly that it is not independent schools that have caused the division in society to which the hon. Lady refers, but rather the withdrawal of the ladder for the many others. The very best schools in my constituency—I must declare an interest: I am a governor of Hillview, a non-selective secondary school—do indeed provide that ladder and reduce the social division to which she refers. It is therefore not simply a question of identifying an independent school; it is about an entire educational range.

[Anna Turley]

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. We have seen the damage that selective education has done, and the pulling up of the ladder has had a quite devastating impact. I do not believe that it is acceptable. Having been educated in Kent—I am going back to far too long ago—I have a strong view that there was quite a divisive approach to education in that county. Selective education is damaging to social mobility, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to challenge that in all its forms. I also recognise that many independent schools do an extremely good job in supporting the state sector.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Just for the record, I actually do support selective education.

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman supports state education—

[Tom Tugendhat]

Selective education.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

To clarify, the new clauses are about trying to get better value for the public from private and selective education. To use a previous argument of the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, where taxpayers’ money is—

[Tom Tugendhat]

Taken by force.

[Peter Kyle]

—taken by force and given to selective education, we need to ensure that the public who pay for it get full value for it.