Finances of the House of Commons

Viscount Thurso Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the medium-term financial plan for the House of Commons as set out in Appendix A to the First Report from the Finance and Services Committee, HC 754; endorses the intention of the Finance and Services Committee to recommend to the House of Commons Commission a House of Commons: Administration Estimate of £200.6 million, which includes funding for the proposed Education Centre; further notes that, in line with the target for the Savings Programme, this is consistent with a reduction of 17 per cent in real terms since 2010-11; and further endorses the intention of the Finance and Services Committee to recommend to the Members Estimate Committee a House of Commons: Members Estimate of £33.3 million.

I am extremely grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. Last year was Members’ first opportunity to have a substantial debate on the finances of the administration of the House and their own budget, and this year’s debate very much follows the same procedure. The Finance and Services Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, has produced its report on next year’s estimate and is proposing to advise the Commission that the estimate be £200.6 million. This debate is an opportunity for Members to discuss the report and the related documents, to consider the advice before it is made to the Commission and, I hope, to approve it.

Following a change to Standing Orders this year, the Committee now has a duty to advise on the Members estimate, and I want to make clear the difference between the two estimates. The substantial amounts required to look after Members, in terms of pay, office costs and so on, are dealt with by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in the IPSA estimate. The remaining Members estimate deals with the small number of costs left over after most of the costs went to IPSA, and they are such things as IT provision, stationery, liability insurance coverage and the occasional pension liability that occurs as a result of movements in the bond price within the Members contributory pension scheme.

I would like to begin by paying tribute to the staff who serve us. We have the good fortune to be looked after, in all areas of the House, by very dedicated and extremely professional staff who do their utmost to ensure that we can do our work smoothly and efficiently. They often work in difficult circumstances and for long hours, mirroring our work patterns, and are run by a management who do everything possible to help us in everything we seek to do. I am therefore happy to pay that personal tribute, but I believe it is one that Members in all parts of the House would be happy to pay too.

I should like briefly to set out some wider points about the estimate and then make a small number of points that I believe should be addressed individually. At the start of this Parliament, the Commission decided that, in a time of considerable austerity, it was right to have a look at the costs of running the House service. During 2010-11, a rigorous examination was made of expenditure, based on the principle that we should be able to do whatever was necessary for our proper work as scrutineers of Government, legislators and promoters of our constituents’ interests, but that, within that principle, we should seek to do that work as effectively as possible. The result of that examination, which took place over some considerable time through that year, was the medium-term financial plan, which the House agreed to last year and which broadly delivers a 17% reduction on the estimate over the course of this Parliament, from what was estimated would be £231 million at the start to £210 million by 2014. This year’s estimate of £200.6 million is on track to achieve that.

I should add, for those who are aficionados of dissecting the numbers, that some areas of the numbers are not entirely like-for-like. Therefore, to make an exact comparison, one has to take account of those areas of transfer in or transfer out. I can assure the House, however, that in broad terms we are on track to achieve the estimate that we were seeking to achieve of £210 million by the end of the period.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Paragraph 2 of appendix A, which is entitled “Medium-Term Financial Plan” and appears on page 12 of the report, lists

“a number of significant policy matters and events on the horizon that may have a bearing on the budget”.

The variability of the sums derived from those items seems to be enormous, so how can we have any confidence in the figures that the hon. Gentleman is presenting to us?

[John Thurso]

The Finance and Services Committee has looked in detail and scrutinised all these areas. One of the major factors that will affect the estimate is the movement of the House pension fund from our own resources across to the civil service, which will change the way it is accounted. The other areas where there is a degree of uncertainty include, for example, the impairment costs, which we have been advised should be made in respect of certain buildings, and the way we account for them. These have been moved from the capital cost, which is where they were budgeted for, to the resource account of the administration budget, where it is thought they should more properly be. I hope that answers, in part, the hon. Gentleman’s question.

[Andrew Miller]

With respect—I do not mean that to be interpreted in the usual way—the first item on that list is:

“Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal”.

That is a massive imponderable. We have no idea at present of the scale of that cost, the timetable or where all the other items on the list ought to fit into the context of that project.

[John Thurso]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for narrowing his question down. I will come to the restoration and renewal project in a moment. The key point is that, except for the points I will make shortly about the contract to make a full, professional and robust estimate of the costs and cost probabilities going forward, none of the costs to which he refers will fall in this Parliament or in the current medium-term financial plan. What the hon. Gentleman has identified will fall into the costs that go forward beyond the time frame of the costs that we are debating.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman rightly pays tribute to the staff of this House, and the report refers to our desire to be an “exemplary employer”. Will he confirm that no one working in this place is employed on a zero-hours contract and that staff receive at least the London living wage?

[John Thurso]

I can confirm both those points. Indeed, this was going to be my first substantive point. I suggest that I come right on to it and make my points; if the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with them, he can intervene on me again.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Allowing for ins and outs, the global reduction on House expenditure is 17%. Does the same apply to expenditure by, and on behalf of, Select Committees? Will the same reduction in expenditure be achieved for Select Committees?

[John Thurso]

I intend to cover resources to Select Committees as one of my five main issues. The 17% figure applies to the total, but there are variances within it. I believed it was important to approach this from the beginning not by saying, “There is the budget; let’s just slice it and take 17% off everything”, but by looking at areas where bigger savings or fewer savings might be made. The objective was to deliver the appropriate service that we as parliamentarians require to do our work. That was certainly what lay behind the work that was done. There is an issue relating to Committee resources, and I promise to come on to it. Again, I invite my hon. Friend to intervene on me later if he is not satisfied by what I say.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. He would add, of course, that some positive savings may be made—in other words, the work of the Administration Committee and other Committees can support positive saving, so it is not just a case of making cuts.

[John Thurso]

Indeed. I believe my hon. Friend refers to the income generation strand. I intend to refer to that, too, so I invite him to intervene again after I have dealt with it. I suspect that the Chair of the Administration Committee intends to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, and may well speak on this subject, as I know that this Committee has done a considerable amount of work on it.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is giving us a foretaste of his speech, so will he say whether he intends to speak about the cost of maintaining the fabric of the House as well?

[John Thurso]

Indeed. Another of my five points deals with restoration and renewal. Perhaps it would be a good idea if I just got on with it, Mr Speaker!

I was about to clarify the five points on which I wanted to focus: first, pay and contracts; secondly, income generation; thirdly, restoration and renewal; fourthly, the education centre; and, fifthly, Committee resources. There are a huge number of other issues within that. I have with me the last three days-worth of reading provided for me on virtually every subject. I am happy to try to answer any points raised, but I would like to stick mainly to the five points that I have drawn out as being the most important for our consideration today.

On pay and conditions, then, I have said before that we have a very high quality of staff. In my judgment, it is imperative to maintain that, and to do so, we must be exemplary employers. It is indeed the firm intention of both the House of Commons Commission and the Management Board that the House service be regarded as a model employer, using the best practices in employment. As we all know, however, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and it is not so much the intentions that count as how we give effect to them.

Let me deal with our commitment to the London living wage. I may be in danger of getting pelted for what I say, but I pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker, because you have led the drive with the Commission and the Management Board to ensure that we make a full and true commitment to the London living wage. You have provided an important piece of leadership on that issue. Both the chair of the Commission and the chief executive of the House service take the issue of the London living wage extremely seriously. The House is aiming to secure accreditation as a living wage employer from Citizens UK before Christmas this year and to achieve full compliance on all our contracts by April next year. That means our approach goes beyond the accreditation requirements. I can report that as of today all current House staff and all agency staff supplied to the House are paid at least the London living wage, and that contractors with dedicated staff who are based on the estate are paying those staff at least the London living wage, with a small number of exceptions that are currently being addressed and which we anticipate will have been addressed within a very short space of time. The final category is other contractors that provide services to the House. Good progress is being made to ensure they are paying their UK staff at least the London living wage if in London, or the living wage if outside London. I reiterate that we are on course to be accredited by Christmas and we are on course to meet the goal of having everybody, including our contractors, in compliance by next April.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that, with the support of my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, I tabled some parliamentary questions a few months ago about the living wage. At the time, the hon. Gentleman said a small number of new starters—agency staff, I think—were not receiving the living wage in their probationary period. Has that issue now been addressed? If the hon. Gentleman could write to me about that, I would be most grateful.

[John Thurso]

My belief is that that issue has, indeed, been addressed—and I think I have just had a little divine inspiration to confirm that. If, by any mischance, I have misinformed the hon. Gentleman, I will most certainly write to him, but otherwise he may take it that that has indeed been addressed.

The second issue I wish to touch on is what are termed zero-hours contracts. The Commission asked the Finance and Services Committee to look at that issue and prepare advice. We are in the final stages of preparing that advice and it will go to the Commission at its next meeting on Monday, so it is still, as it were, in draft, but I would like, if I may, to outline what the content of that advice is going to be.

In summary, we are advising that the House should not take on zero-hours contracts. Their key feature is that they do not have mutuality of obligation; that is the critical point that came out. We had a fascinating written and oral evidence session involving some very good employers ranging from supermarkets to the Royal Household and others, and what came out clearly was that good employers with good HR practices are not particularly keen on zero-hours contracts because of this lack of mutuality. We came to the firm view that, as that is the principal feature of zero-hours contracts, we should have nothing whatever to do with them.

We further go on to advise that where staff are currently being employed on a casual basis they should be placed on proper contracts that provide for full and appropriate employee rights with mutuality of obligation, and that that should be supported by best practice and, in particular, by the adoption of a code of conduct. I was particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend—if I may refer to him as that—the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) who, with other colleagues, put together a report on this issue that included a model code, which we think is very fit and which we intend to recommend to the Commission.

This kind of call-off contract is a much better way of dealing with the perfectly legitimate need to have some casual staff within our service, particularly in regard to catering. We believe that by doing that in the way I have set out, and which we intend to advise the Commission to follow, we will be fulfilling our goal of being employers of the first order.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work he is doing on this, which I think is very helpful. We have been in correspondence over the past year now about the interpretation of the contract of the staff in the Members’ Tea Room. Some of them have been working to certain customs and practice conditions for over 25 years and have had wage cuts as a result of a new interpretation of their contract. That still has not been resolved, and my understanding is that, following last week’s negotiations, the staff are still awaiting an offer from management. Can we try to resolve this situation as quickly as possible? It has gone on for more than a year and is undermining morale.

[John Thurso]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue with me. I do not have a specific answer to it, but I take very seriously what he said and will look at it, do what I can and come back to him.

The final point that we learned from our evidence session, and which absolutely every one of the HR directors of the various enterprises made, was: never allow HR and management to use zero hours as a sloppy way of managing staff. Our advice will contain a statement to that effect: that it is proper to have call-off contracts and to deal with casual staff properly, but it must be done with rigorous HR. I do not know what fellow commissioners may or may not say to all that, but I am hopeful that the Commission will accept the advice we are proffering.

The final point I would make on pay and conditions is that change is always difficult and unsettling, even in the best of organisations. I have had experience of, to use the jargon, “re-engineering” two businesses that were going bust to make them sustainable for the future. In making changes and asking people to change the way they do things, there are difficulties and there is absolutely no way round that. That is going on here, but what we are trying to ensure—and seeking to impress on the management—is that this be done as transparently and fairly as possible. There will be blips in morale from time to time, but everything possible should be done to mitigate that, and I believe the House service has listened to the points we have made.

There is of course one major area of disagreement on pay and conditions, which is going to end up being dealt with in court. That is regrettable, but as I understand it the legal advice on both sides is robust, and that is what happens in such situations. However, in most other areas —probably all—the discussions, based on good will, are likely to progress well, and I pay tribute, frankly, to the union representatives who have also engaged in those discussions with House management.

[Andrew Miller]

Of course, we are not a business that is going bust; we are a Parliament, and I am sure we all agree that that is the top priority in this discussion. What contingency is there in the figures if the House is proved wrong and has to pay legal fees and the increments involved?

[John Thurso]

The sums are fully provided for, as the hon. Gentleman would expect. I cannot tell him off the top of my head exactly what they are, including all the elements; if I may, I will write to him. It is obviously several million pounds, but I do not know exactly how many several million, and I would not wish to give the House the wrong information.

When I was saying earlier that I once re-engineered two businesses, I thought, “I know exactly what I would say to that if I was sitting somewhere else in the House”, and the hon. Gentleman has not disappointed me. Of course we are not a business going bust, but in looking at costs, any organisation can look hard at what it is setting out to do and the way it is setting out to do it. We now use iPads and we have radically changed our hours, so how and when we do things have changed out of all recognition, in just a decade. It is therefore right that we look at these issues, and clearly there has to be change.

I turn to income generation, an issue that I anticipate the Chairman of the Administration Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), will fill the House in on if he catches your eye, Mr Speaker. Parliament, in addition to being a working institution, is an iconic visitor attraction and world heritage site, so it is right that we develop ways of making it available to visitors. It is also right that we retrieve the costs of that. The principles, which I have set out before, are, first, that Parliament is a working institution and its work as Parliament takes primacy over all other activities. Secondly, all citizens have a right to access their MP on all aspects of the legislative process without let or hindrance or charge. Subject to those two overriding principles, however, the House has a duty to open to visitors as much as it can, and to recover the costs involved. The three relevant areas are: the development of more commercial tours; the development of retail activity; and the use of the banqueting facilities by outsiders.

[Kevin Brennan]

It is that last point that disturbs quite a few colleagues in the House. Point 26 of the financial plan talks about

“commercial hire on a limited number of occasions”

and

“on an experimental basis”.

We have managed to survive as a Parliament for several hundred years without having to hire ourselves out, in some cases to the very commercial interests that caused the austerity that has resulted in our cutting our budgets. It would be ironic, would it not, if the bankers were sipping champagne in the people’s Parliament because we needed to raise money as a result of the damage they had caused. I believe that that is a line we should not cross.

[John Thurso]

I completely respect the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but there are huge amounts of time when we are in recess and not sitting here. Our dining rooms and banqueting rooms are very good facilities that match the best facilities offered by the livery halls and other venues. If we can operate during those times to make money that can be put towards restoration and renewal, for example, that is an absolutely legitimate thing to do.

[Kevin Brennan]

No, it is wrong in principle.

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman and I will disagree about this. Last year an amendment was tabled on the subject, and it was duly defeated. I completely understand his point, and it is critical that the people who have access to this place are properly vetted, but if venues such as Buckingham Palace can open in this way, I see no reason why we cannot do so. We should also be able to recover the costs involved. Clearly we should not charge for room hire for Member-organised events while we are working here, but otherwise, I believe that this is the right thing to do. The House, with its customary caution in these matters, is doing it on the basis of a two-year trial, which is being overseen by the Administration Committee. At the end of that time, we will be able to see how it is going.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

My hon. Friend might be aware that, being close to London, I use the facilities here for charity events to the nth degree. Those events do not involve bankers; they involve ordinary members of the public who, because we are opening our doors, are given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see the facilities here and enjoy the expertise of our banqueting service. I believe that, as MPs, we should be opening the House in this way.

[John Thurso]

My hon. Friend serves on the Finance and Services Committee, and I am grateful to him for his comments.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) that outside organisations such as charities should be able to have access to these facilities. I am a patron of a charity that had its launch here two years ago, and many people were grateful for that opportunity to come here. However, I also share the concerns of the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) to some extent. One of the reasons that the catering department has had to look so much more widely is that political parties and trade unions, which regularly used to use the facilities, were effectively prohibited from doing so following the reforms of a few years ago. We want healthy political parties and well-organised trade unions that serve the interests of their members, and it is something of an irony that those bodies in our civic society that are among the most closely connected to this place are now the least able to use our facilities. Should not that matter be addressed?

[John Thurso]

If I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman about that, unless the Chair of the Administration Committee happens to know more about the exact criteria involved and can give him an answer now. I believe that the reforms involved removing sponsored events, and that it would still be possible for other events to take place under the new system, but I will find out exactly what the situation is and get back to the hon. Gentleman.

[Andrew Miller]

We need some clarity on that in this debate, as there is some confusion. The events that I run on behalf of the parliamentary and scientific committee, the oldest all-party group, are rocketing in price under the new propositions. Learned societies, universities and science-based organisations should not carry such a burden.

[John Thurso]

I can confirm that there is no charge for events undertaken by Members, and there is a 25% discount on events for outsiders that are sponsored by a Member. There is no discount on events that are run purely by outsiders. That is my understanding, but I will happily confirm that to him.

[Kevin Brennan]

rose—

[Mr Jenkin]

rose—

[John Thurso]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and then I want to move on.

[Kevin Brennan]

I was endeavouring to organise an event, on behalf of an all-party group, and was told that there was a minimum charge of £750 for the Terrace marquee. Does that square with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making?

[John Thurso]

I really do not want to go further in making comments when I do not have fully accurate data in front of me. In my role as president of the Tourism Society of the United Kingdom, I am sponsoring an event next March, and it is on the same conditions as the event last March. There might be a cut-off for events that are already booked, which is why I might not have the full facts. I will, if I may, come back to the hon. Gentleman and make sure that everyone who is in the Chamber is fully aware of exactly what is happening.

[Mr Bacon]

I am sorry to labour this point, but the hon. Gentleman half makes the point for me. I was told last week by my secretary that a social housing provider in my constituency, which has held events here in the past, thinks that the new terms and conditions will be absolutely crippling and that it will not be able to hold events here in the future. My point, which echoes that of the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), is that this is not the InterContinental.

[John Thurso]

I am very well aware of that. The principle is that we should recover the appropriate costs. It would be quite wrong for this House to subsidise anyone from outside in the provision of any facility. It is a matter of retrieving the appropriate cost for an event. That goes back to the principle that I set out at the beginning of the debate. I ask hon. Gentlemen to let me get the exact truth of the matter and give it to them, rather than carry on and possibly make a mistake. The Chair of the Administration Committee might be able to give a fuller answer.

The Palace of Westminster is a heritage site, an iconic building and a major visitor attraction. Most importantly, it is also a working institution in which we work throughout our time as Members of Parliament. It is also a building in which the fabric is at, or well past, its sell-by date. Some mechanical and electrical elements have been nursed on by brilliant engineers, but in any other building they might well have been replaced quite a long time ago. It is clear that a major project of renewal and restoration is required. The Commission’s internal report suggested a number of possibilities, and three broad strands were chosen. It was decided that, as the matter was so important, it should be looked at by external experts who can look both at the robustness of the business cases and at the cost, so that we have the very best possible advice. It has always been my experience that money expended at the start of a process on good understanding of the problem, so that we bottom out and scope the project, saves a great deal of money later on.

Broadly, the three main options are: a rolling programme with no decant—something like we are doing now—but with quite significant changes to working patterns; a rolling programme with a partial decant; or a complete decant to get everything done quickly. Those options will be appraised by the professionals. In order to get the best possible people to do the work, a contract has been put out to tender. I hope to be in a position to announce to the House before we rise for the Christmas recess who has won the tender and the details of it. They will then commence work, which will enable a decision to be made based on robust professional work at some point early in the next Parliament.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is it not clear from what the hon. Gentleman has said that vast sums of money are being spent and will continue to be spent to ensure the upkeep of this building? Nevertheless, decanting must come at some stage because the money that is being spent will not, of course, bring about the total work that is clearly required. I worry that if we continue to delay the decision it will cost much more. I hope that by the end of the Parliament the decision will be reached so that the work that clearly is required—a completely new building, on this present site, of course—can be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point and he and I have corresponded on the matter. It was precisely to ensure the robustness of the decision that the Commission decided to look for external professional assistance with no optimism bias, internal bias or anything else. I have a private view on what the result will probably be, but it would be quite wrong of me to state it publicly before we have seen the results of the work. If we get the best experts we can to consider the issue completely dispassionately and judge it against the criteria we put forward, we must wait and see what they say. I will not prejudge the outcome of their work. It will take a little time to do the report and I suspect that the decision will therefore be one for the next Parliament—although probably for very early in that Parliament. That is probably the correct way forward.

Let me now turn to the education centre. In the last Parliament, a decision was made on the recommendation of the Admin Committee to create a dedicated education centre substantially to increase the number of school visits to Parliament. In the light of the likelihood of the restoration and renewal programme’s going ahead and the financial conditions prevailing at the time, the Commission decided not to proceed with the full-on version but instead to proceed with a more modest approach, which is that being proposed at the moment. The proposal is for a demountable building to be placed on Victoria embankment. It will comprise five education rooms with appropriate facilities for looking after schoolchildren and a dedicated security entrance. The latter, of course, will have the added benefit of meaning that they will not have to come through security at Portcullis House. I know that occasionally there is a clash between the interests of Members and those of the education centre, so that is a happy bonus.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble and hon. Friend for giving way. Will the separate entrance to the proposed building have annual security cost implications? Is not the estimate for maintaining security at the education centre almost £500,000 a year?

[John Thurso]

Indeed. I would say to my right hon. Friend, who also serves on the Finance and Services Committee, that I was about to bring out the proper concerns he and other members of the Committee hold on that point. I will deal with them fully in just a moment.

The plans I have outlined will allow an extra 55,000 pupils a year to visit us. The current number is 45,000, so it will more than double. I emphasise that quite a lot of research has been done that makes it very clear that engaging with schoolchildren by getting them to come and see this place first hand and be shown how we work is by far one of the most effective ways of securing engagement in politics. I therefore set out not only to defend the education centre, but to advocate it robustly—we ought to be very proud of it.

The plans will depend on a number of factors, one of which is planning permission, which probably will not be dealt with until January or February. I thought it appropriate to draw that to the House’s attention today, as with a bit of luck, a fair wind and planning permission children could be using the new education centre this time next year.

Some Members have made the valid point that perhaps we should put the education centre on hold until renewal and restoration have taken place, but I respectfully argue the exact opposite. The centre will allow twice as many children to come here, so if we were to wait the likely five to 10 years for R and R it could be 12 to 14 years before the additional children came here, by which time several generations of schoolchildren would have missed their chance completely, so it is very important.

The costs involved—about £7 million in capital costs and approximately £1 million in running costs—are quite appropriate and proportionate to what is proposed. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) is correct that a substantial chunk of the running costs—£470,000 or thereabouts—is for security, but the House’s total security costs are about £25 million, so in context it is not a particularly large sum. My point of view—I happily recognise that it is purely personal—is that £1 million, which we hope their lordships will consent to share with us, would be a suitable and proper investment in the education of our children and in getting them engaged with politics.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I am very supportive of the comments the hon. Gentleman has just made. Perhaps it would help other Members to know that that was not the only option that was looked at. Other options for increasing the number of schoolchildren coming here were considered. The only alternative available was putting a facility in No. 1 Parliament street. Anyone who considered that realised that fewer schoolchildren would be able to get through the facility and that it would simply transfer the congestion from Portcullis House and make it even worse at No. 1 Parliament street, so there is no real alternative to the proposal before us.

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman, who also serves on the Finance and Services Committee, makes a valid point. The key point is that the per-pupil cost of this option was the lowest, so those of us who are in favour think that it gives the best value for money. Having said that, I completely recognise the point of view put forward by other Members. I am yet to meet a Member who is against the concept; the question is one of timing. I believe that we have to get on with it, but I fully accept that others do not necessarily share that view.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend answer the concern about how we can end up spending £7 million on a temporary building for this purpose? I imagine that schools across the country could do quite a lot with £7 million, but they cannot get it. It seems a lot for a temporary structure.

[John Thurso]

I am delighted to reassure my hon. Friend that it is not a temporary structure in the sense of being a glorified portakabin. In fact, it is quite the reverse. It is actually a purpose-built, demountable building with a minimum guaranteed shelf life of around 30 years. For a number of years we have had a very good-looking demountable building that used to be used on the green when we first started giving tours of the House. Everybody thought that it was a pretty good building and good value for money. Ultimately, it is about balancing the fact that it would be lovely to have something permanent that might or might not come with R and R with the possibility of having something not very good-looking but extremely portable. This genuinely offers extremely good value for money. The design has been undertaken by architects who were involved in some of the work on the Olympic site. It is really terribly well done. As I understand it, it is so well designed that the only objection so far on seeking planning permission is that one cannot see it—that it is not obvious enough. I therefore think we have probably got it just about right. I reassure my hon. Friend; I genuinely believe that it is good value for money. I commend it to Members of the House.

My final point is about Committee resources. One of the interesting things about this Parliament is the way in which Select Committees have taken on a more robust role following the introduction of election of their Chairs. Other than the Public Accounts Committee, which of course has the full and mighty resource of the National Audit Office behind it, Select Committees’ resources have remained broadly the same. The current plan does not envisage any particular increase, but Parliament should look carefully at what we want to do and how we might best do it. If it is recognised that there is a need for more resource, I would certainly look favourably at that in the next financial plan.

The Liaison Committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), should look at the resources of Select Committees, and I would certainly commend that work. The Finance and Services Committee would be happy to engage with the Liaison Committee in that.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I am grateful for the remarks that my hon. Friend has made about resources for Select Committees. He is absolutely on the button—they have become a victim of their own success. For example, the Foreign Affairs Committee, with a staff of six, is meant to exercise oversight over 900 employees in 140 locations around the planet. We cannot do it. It is critical that the resources are reviewed.

[John Thurso]

I share my right hon. Friend’s views. I am signalling to the House that this should be considered in the same measured manner in which we have looked at other things. If we cut resources in places because we can do things more effectively, we must be able robustly to state why it is necessary to increase resources where we might wish to do so, and how that should be done.

Well ahead of the next planning round, which will be in a year or two, I am signalling that work should be done on Select Committee resources, and I encourage Select Committee Chairs to engage with the Liaison Committee and elsewhere to look at the resources properly and ensure that Parliamentarians’ key job of scrutiny of the Executive and some outside bodies, which we do through Select Committees, is undertaken.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

May I preface my question by saying what an excellent job my hon. Friend does in chairing the Finance and Services Committee? Will he confirm that one of the overriding tenets of our decisions on these cuts, which have not been easy, is that they should not affect the way in which Members of Parliament do their job? We have to look carefully at Select Committee expenses because they should not be used as a reason to restrict their effectiveness.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso]

I confirm that, in determining the appropriate resource for every activity, we always consider what we are seeking to achieve and the most effective way of achieving it, and we base the resource on that. That is how we wish to proceed.

[Mr Bacon]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the PAC is in a separate category because it has the resources of the NAO behind it, and of course the NAO seconds people to the Scrutiny Unit as well, but even the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I was a member some years ago, had 16 members of staff. It is curious that Select Committees, through the Liaison Committee, routinely undertake foreign visits—for very good reasons, I might add—but if a Committee wants to get even the smallest piece of independent legal advice for itself, it is inordinately difficult. In making the case for more resources, should that not be one of the things that is seriously considered? We need to make sure that Select Committees have access to the best legal advice and subject experts as a matter of routine within the warp and weft of their own activity, without being dependent on others.

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. For most of last year I had the honour of serving on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. We had the opportunity to engage senior counsel, junior counsel and experts from a wide range of areas. We worked at breakneck speed and in a year came up with what has generally been accepted as a pretty comprehensive and far-reaching report that the Government are now putting into legislation—not enough of it, some commissioners believe, but most of it. The report was paid for by the Government because they had asked for it. That is an indication of how one might consider working in future.

I do not want to prejudge anything, nor do I wish to open a can of worms. It might be possible to say that a Select Committee should or should not travel or that it should spend more money on this or that. It is a debate that Committee Chairs and others involved in Committees need to have. They should do it in a thorough way and put forward something that is really robust, and then, at the financial end of things, we consider it based on fact rather than their saying, “Please give me 20% more.” The days when people just said, “Let’s have 20% more and go and do X, Y and Z with it”, are gone. The right approach is to work out what we want to do and how scrutiny can best be achieved, and then look at how best to deliver the resource.

[Mr Jenkin]

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) was referring to the lack of flexibility in the budgets—the fact that, for example, a Committee cannot forgo its right to go on a foreign trip and use the money to buy, say, part of or a whole extra member of staff. Obviously some Committees have very big travel commitments, but I do not see why those that do not have travel commitments cannot spend their allocation on something different.

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman puts forward the interesting proposition that instead of having a series of silos that each Committee can dip into, each Committee has a budget and then decides how best to use it. That is quite a departure from where we are today, and I therefore could not comment on it other than to say that I find it an attractive intellectual possibility to pursue. My point in raising this was to suggest to people such as him who are considering these matters that a process is needed, and I think the Liaison Committee is the best place for it to be kicked off.

Before anybody else has a chance to intervene, may I say that I think I have now carried out a tour of everything? I apologise for occupying the crease for so long—it is not my habit—but I wished to take all the interventions that were offered as best I could. I commend the motion and the estimate to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso]

By my count, some 14 or possibly 15 Members—in addition to the Front Benchers and me—have taken part in the debate. It has been constructive, not only because of the support that has been given to the motion and concepts that have been proposed but in how disagreement has been expressed. I would have liked to have acknowledged the contributions of every Member who spoke, both those who expressed differences of opinion and those who expressed support, but given that we are a little past 2.15 pm, may I do that collectively? It has been an extremely good and fulfilling debate and I will ensure that where I made the odd mistake—I have subsequently been inspired with the answers—Members receive the information in writing. My strong sense, which I hope is not misplaced, is that the House feels favourably towards the motion, so I urge Members to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the medium-term financial plan for the House of Commons as set out in Appendix A to the First Report from the Finance and Services Committee, HC 754; endorses the intention of the Finance and Services Committee to recommend to the House of Commons Commission a House of Commons: Administration Estimate of £200.6 million, which includes funding for the proposed Education Centre; further notes that, in line with the target for the Savings Programme, this is consistent with a reduction of 17 per cent in real terms since 2010-11; and further endorses the intention of the Finance and Services Committee to recommend to the Members Estimate Committee a House of Commons: Members Estimate of £33.3 million.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Viscount Thurso Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David]

If necessary, yes. In all fairness I cannot believe that the Government would seek to soldier on with a piece of legislation when all objective evidence shows that the time scale is so tight, and the difficulties to be faced so enormous, that it cannot be introduced effectively in time for the run-up to the next election. I stress the run-up because we must not talk only about the general election but the period before it. If the new clause is accepted by the Government—I genuinely hope it will be—it would be part of the legislative base. As a consequence, if the objective information is provided, the Government will do what is necessary to prevent a ridiculous and farcical situation from developing. Such a situation would harm not the Conservative or Labour parties but democracy itself, and it would further undermine people’s support, involvement and engagement in our democratic process.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman argues in favour of new clause 3, and he has—rightly—mentioned the excellent work done by the Electoral Commission. Whatever problem he has defined, however, the solution proposed in the new clause is one the Electoral Commission does not support. Is it the case that whatever argument he is making, the solution he proposes is not the right one?

[Wayne David]

I am not here to answer for the Electoral Commission. Its emphasis has been on identifying the problem, and it is up to us as politicians to identify the solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

My hon. Friend makes a truly excellent point. Sadly, the criticism levelled at those of us who have strong reservations about the Bill is that we somehow want to promote extremists or those in our political camp. The truth is a long way from that—it could not be further away.

The example of the Royal British Legion is a very good one. I think, largely due to its excellent work in support of the covenant, that there is consensus in the House on how we need to give the greatest possible support to former members of the armed forces who have given so much to defend this country. That consensus was in large part achieved due to the work of the Royal British Legion in the run-up to the general election. All of us received representations, and long may it be able to do that kind of work. The Royal British Legion is one of the organisations that has made representations to MPs to express concerns about the Bill, even though the Government have made some concessions. I welcome those concessions, but even the Royal British Legion thinks that there is a heck of a long way to go.

[John Thurso]

It is my understanding that if the House accepts the Government amendments, which reflect those I tabled in Committee, the Royal British Legion’s concern will have been met. If that is the case, is there not a danger that we are looking at the wrong point in the Bill? What we do not want, and what part 2 is designed to deal with, is something like the National Rifle Association in America or the Tea party movement. That is the danger we need to guard against far more than a potential unintended consequence that the Government are trying to mitigate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

Indeed. We are coming to the end of the rather truncated process of deliberation on the Bill in this House, but my right hon. Friend makes a powerful point in underlining our concerns about this part of the legislation. We are concerned about democracy. We like to say that this is the mother of Parliaments and to regard Britain as a beacon of democracy in the world, and it concerns me enormously that so many people—ourselves included—believe that the Bill will take us backwards rather than forwards by undermining the principles and relationships that are fundamental to our concept of modern society.

[John Thurso]

I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question about this point of principle. His party, when in government, passed the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That Act accepts that the regulation of third parties is desirable and necessary. Is he now saying that his party got it wrong, or does he accept the principle and are we now arguing only about the detail?

[Wayne David]

That is a good question, and I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has asked it. He is right to say that we introduced that legislation in 2000. We are not saying for a moment that it is perfect, however, or that it does not need to be modified in the light of subsequent practice. In fact, the Electoral Commission has been conducting a review and has produced more than 50 recommendations for improving the legislation. We strongly believe that it needs to be improved; we are on record as saying that we need to find a way of taking the big money out of politics. We are not defending the status quo. We want change, but we want it to be introduced properly, systematically and on the basis of dialogue and consensus, not on the basis of this Bill, whose rushed, back-of-an-envelope proposals have been pursued—some would say—on a partisan basis. We have to be careful and say yes to change, but for goodness’ sake let us work together. What is wrong with working together to ensure that we achieve a proper consensus? That would work not to our own political advantage but to the political advantage of society and democracy as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

The hon. Gentleman moves the debate to party political spending, which is not addressed in the Bill. I would happily work with him and his colleagues to address party political funding—I would be delighted to do so. Perhaps we can pursue that beyond today’s debate.

In Committee, the Minister, who has led for the Government today, promised

“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.”—[Official Report, 10 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 862.]

In reality, the Government amendments simply fail to fulfil his promise.

I refer the House to the legal opinion of Ros Baston, who has been working with a number of third sector organisations. Her legal opinion, which is one of a number of which the Minister will be aware, demonstrates why we need far more scrutiny and consideration of part 2. It states:

“Issues-based campaigning will continue to be covered by regulation. It appears that the government considers that removing the previous reference to ‘enhancing the standing’ of parties or candidates has a significant effect on the scope of what is covered…In my view, it does not…The natural meaning of ‘promote’ is to enhance the standing of, or make people think better of, something or someone…The natural construction, therefore, is that issues-based campaigning will be covered where it can be reasonably regarded as intended to encourage voters to look more favourably at candidates or parties who do or don’t support particular policies, as well as support for a specific party or candidates. This is primarily an objective test, and, in simple terms, looks at the likely effect of the activity.”

The Minister spoke of intent, but Ros Baston asks us to look at the likely effect of the activity. If an activity is likely to make people think better of parties or candidates who support something, it might be covered by the Bill, even if there are reasons for it such as awareness-raising—the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has made that point.

Ros Baston also states:

“Campaigns could fall within regulation if they…promote policies which, for whatever reason, are associated with one or more political parties or candidates”

and not others

“such as housing, welfare, a referendum on EU membership, wind farms or HS2”

and

“use MPs or candidates as active advocates of their cause”.

She continues:

“I do not consider it sustainable to argue that the campaign is not hoping that people or parties sympathetic to its cause are elected. Therefore, when it undertakes public awareness activity in the run-up to elections, it may well at some level intend to improve the chances of election for those who support their cause as well as to encourage others to join the campaign. There is, after all, no requirement in the Bill or the proposed amendments for the activity to be directly or obviously partisan, or for candidates to be named.”

The opinion goes on:

“The effect of the Bill remains that more charities and low spending campaigners will be subject to the enhanced and much more onerous restrictions. This is because the range of activities covered will increase”—

that is why it is not simply the same as the current legislation—

“and the thresholds for registration will decrease to just £5,000 in England and £2,000 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”.

We will discuss those thresholds under the next group. Furthermore, it states that the additional

“limit on spending in individual constituencies could mean that a single joint campaign on a specific issue in one area could result in further spending—local or national—being unlawful.”

Ros Baston’s final point is that the

“amendments make two changes which are of concern to campaigning organisations.”

Those relate to “market research and advertising” and to

“the definition of a ‘section of the public’, and the removal of the exclusion for material sent to ‘relevant supporters’”.

She states:

“It remains unclear as to whether the costs for research which is used in publications are included, and the government has not excluded staff costs (which are excluded for political parties). It also remains very probable that many political blogs will be covered notwithstanding the amendments. This could lead to a bizarre situation where political parties would not have to account for spending on certain types of market research, but that non-party campaigners would have to do so.”

I do not want my entire speech to be made up of the opinion of Ros Baston, but I will give one final quotation because it is an interesting and forceful opinion:

“The drafting is so vague that campaigns will have to consider whether market research will be caught, regardless of whether the results are used to produce material available to the public or to target particular members of the public. Further, there is no requirement for the research to actually be used in practice at all.”

[John Thurso]

I listened to the whole of the hon. Gentleman’s point about the legal advice because I wanted to hear exactly where it was going. Leaving aside the issues that do not relate to this group of amendments, does he agree that the amendments will take the definition back to that in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000, which is largely what I sought to do in Committee? The opinion of Ros Baston, which is full of conditionals such as coulds, mights and subjunctives, is a commentary on the wording of the 2000 Act. Should we not take into account what happened in 2005 and 2010, because that would show what is actually happening?

[Stephen Twigg]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who attempted to improve this appalling Bill in Committee. However, as is made clear in the extensive quotation that I gave from Ros Baston’s opinion, she does not accept his point that the amendments simply restore the status quo because of the other changes that we will discuss later. We are merely scratching the surface of the changes that the Government are proposing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

Well, we were just being serious for a moment there. The hon. Gentleman normally joins me in being serious about the role of Parliament. I know that he is having a bit of fun, but this is a serious issue. Some 10,500 voluntary organisations and their parent organisations are saying, “We think you’ve got this wrong—think again.” If he feels that if the amendment were to be won tonight—whatever form of words we use—it would survive the process in the second Chamber and come back, he is having a little joke and we can all have a laugh at that. [Interruption.] I am being told to speed up so that we can get to the vote, so I would like to be allowed to make progress.

I am not just talking about 38 Degrees getting a bad press—rightly, some might argue—or people sometimes being annoyed, depending on their political view, with those on the fringes of some voluntary organisations, because a lot of other people have written to us just this day. A number of them have said things such as they fear this Bill, they are worried about unintended consequences and this does not have legal certainty. Are those the wild and wacky people we need to legislate against? I shall tell hon. Members who these people are; I shall tell the House who said those three things. They were said by Rabbi Sybil Sheridan of the Assembly of Reform Rabbis UK, Neil Thomas of the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Farooq Murad of the Muslim Council of Britain and Paul Parker of the Quakers. I could go on to cite a list of about 20 people from faith groups. According to the Leader of the House, they are making something up in order to embarrass the Government or because they have been wound up. I do not believe these people are so frail-minded. These people are anxious, just as the chairman of a charity who is standing before you is anxious, that we are putting in the Bill and into law something that will chill our ability to campaign. I guarantee to the House that it will chill my organisation’s ability to campaign, because if some bright spark wants to take a case, for some reason or other, against what has been said inadvertently, my budget—I go around cap in hand trying to raise money for my charity—will be spent in a court of law, not on providing the service that I think is appropriate through my charity for babies, children and young people. How many staff would I have to fire if I got landed with a £200,000 legal bill? That is why amendment 101 and the symbolism of tonight’s vote are important. They are important for all those charities outside that have been inundating us with their views.

As the Chair of the Select Committee, elected by this House on an all-party basis, and not as a Back Bencher on the Labour side doing the bidding of the Whips to cause a few problems for the Government, I have a request for Members from all parties. When we last considered the question, the difference between the proposal’s falling, meaning it had to be reconsidered, and its passing was 16 votes. I am asking 16 Members of this House to vote with those who voted last time on amendment 101. That will mean that we give the Government a chance to rearrange the clause in a way that will satisfy people in this House and, above all, that will satisfy people outside who fear what we are going to do today.

[John Thurso]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), and we often agree on these points more than we disagree. I was not going to begin by referring to amendment 101, but following his speech, let me address it with one or two short remarks. His argument is that we should vote for amendment 101 because it sends a signal by introducing the primary purpose test. He invites us to vote for that, knowing that if it is successful it could be put right with a better form of words at a later stage. He asks us to support the symbol rather than any particular words, a concept with which I am familiar and to which I often agree in legislation.

I have a much more significant problem with amendment 101, however, in that it introduces something that worries me greatly in legislation—that is, a subjective as opposed to an objective test. I have been involved in various bits of legislation, many of them rather dry and sometimes technical, such as the creation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, where we have sought to introduce tests that get certain things done. Whenever one is tempted to introduce a test that is not purely objective and does not have objective criteria, one comes up against all sorts of difficulties. Although I have a lot of sympathy with the concept, I could not support this amendment because, for me, it crosses a major legislative Rubicon between the objective test and the subjective test.

[Andrew George]

In that case, in what way is the intention described in Government amendment 32 any less subjective than that proposed in amendment 101?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso]

I counsel my hon. Friend to read the many excellent briefings from the Electoral Commission, which point out that the 2000 legislation contains an objective test. I shall argue for a return to those words because that is an objective test that is relatively understandable. Objective tests can, of course, be argued in a court of law—we all know that—but they have a far greater degree of certainty than a subjective test. That is why I will not be seduced down the route of amendment 101.

I want principally to confine my remarks to the other amendments, proposed by the Government in response to the amendments I tabled in Committee, which I was asked to withdraw so that the Government could make their own proposals. Like the hon. Member for Nottingham North, let me state my gratitude that on that occasion the Government clearly understood what we were trying to do.

Let me give some of the background behind those amendments. Basically, the Government were seeking to redefine the legislation based on the request they had received from the Electoral Commission and others. This was seen at the time—when that legislation arrived before us—as making significant and potentially unintended changes that we had not been able to look into. Incidentally, I reiterate the point that I made on Second Reading and in Committee, which is that if ever a Bill deserved pre-legislative scrutiny, it was this one. But as has been said before, when we want to go to a certain place, we might not have wished to start from here, but we are here, so let’s get on with it and go to where we want to be.

It seemed to me that the sensible course of action to deal with the concerns being expressed by all the people who were in contact with me was to say, okay, let’s not make those changes. Let’s stick with the existing wording, and if we stick with the wording that exists already, we will have addressed that problem. That was what I proposed and what the Government said they would do. The test for me today is, therefore, whether the amendments do what we wanted the Government to do, and that is where I shall concentrate my remarks.

Following on from two of the interventions that I have made today, I shall try to answer one of the critical questions behind the Bill: what is the purpose of part 2? If one does not believe in the purpose of part 2, there is not a great deal of point in seeking to amend it to achieve the objective. To me, part 2 is a critical and essential part of the Bill. Part 2 sets out to regulate the political campaigning activities in favour of or against candidates by third parties. As such, it hardly touches on charities, which are already regulated, as has been mentioned, by charity law. That is not the target and that is why we are not seeking to regulate on that. The target is the non-charity third parties. That is why, among other things, the 2000 Act was brought into being and passed, and it is thoroughly appropriate to look again at it.

I look across the Atlantic, as I mentioned earlier, and I see what happens when organisations such as the National Rifle Association or others start to pour large amounts of money into one district, Senate seat or state, or into one issue. Such organisations have had considerable success in that country in changing the political representation in the House of Representatives and the Senate. I observe in passing that the extremism that has entered American politics over recent years seems to have followed naturally from that.

In our United Kingdom we have a plurality and a diversity in our politics which I think is exceptionally precious and needs to be preserved. I hope we would agree on that. I do see a danger of third-party organisations being created and funded in a way that could have a serious impact on the body politic, which I do not want to see. For me, part 2, far from gagging charities, is an enabler of the freedom of speech of the smaller people in politics throughout the United Kingdom.

I stand wholly behind the principle, as indeed did the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) an hour and a half ago, when I asked him this precise question and he responded that those on the Opposition Front Bench were in favour of the principle being put forward and were behind the 2000 Act. They agreed that the Act needed updating. The point of his reply to a straightforward question was that the principle behind part 2 was in essence one with which the Opposition still agreed. If the Opposition feel that there should be no regulation of third parties, if they genuinely feel that third parties in politics—great rich blocs of people—can come and shove money into distant constituencies and get away with it unregulated, I invite them to say so. If not, I hope for their support for the principle of the Bill.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

What a straw man the hon. Gentleman has just raised. Does he not realise that that is all avoided by the existing law, which was put in place in 2000? What we are dealing with here are changes that this Government are introducing, in a partial and partisan way, without any consultation or any attempt to discuss them with wider civil society, campaigners or third parties. What we need to do is take the Bill off the agenda and do it properly so that we can develop the electoral law for third parties and political parties on a cross-party basis in order to prevent the kinds of abuses he is talking about, which the existing law, unamended by the Bill, already prevents.

[John Thurso]

I have the greatest respect for the hon. Lady, but I fundamentally disagree with her assertion, because the 2000 Act, as her Front-Bench colleagues have already accepted, does not do the job she claims. That is why the Bill has been brought forward. The principle is that we want to ensure that those who wish to pour large amounts of money into certain constituencies, as has been done quite legally over the last period, will no longer be able to do so.

There is a very important reason why we should have the principle of part 2. The question before us is not whether that principle is right, but how best to put it into legislation. Therefore, what we need to consider is the extent to which the legislation before us achieves that and the extent to which it might act against the interests of those we want to be unaffected, the charities and civil society organisations.

On that score, the intention having been largely to return the definitions, which is the key point, to the status quo ante, I was grateful to read in the Electoral Commission’s latest briefing of 9 October:

“The Commission believes that, where significant non-party campaigning takes place, it is right that this is done transparently and is properly regulated. As we set out in our regulatory review of party and election finance earlier this year, although the current system works well and we have worked closely with third parties to achieve this, there is scope for improving transparency”,

which is what the Bill is all about. In relation to these amendments, it has said:

“In our view, the new wording is clearer than the wording in the Bill as introduced, and we think this change is helpful.”

[Mr Allen]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman inadvertently missed a page between those two quotations, because at the end of the first one, in relation to which he was praying in aid the Electoral Commission, it states:

“We were also clear in our review, however, that changes in this complex area require careful consideration.”

I think that he, being a fair man, would not say that what we have in discussing this without any pre-legislative consultation could be termed “careful consideration.”

[John Thurso]

I happily agree that in an ideal world there would have been pre-legislative scrutiny and a considerably improved process—the hon. Gentleman and I are as one on that. However, the Bill is before us and we are dealing with it. I think that the point I have made stands. I submit that the Government amendments reflect almost exactly the purpose of the amendments I proposed, and as such I am happy to support them. There are other parts of the Bill that we will come to later—I will not touch on them now, Mr Speaker, as you would call me to order—where I think there could be improvement. There are concerns about thresholds and other areas that we will come to, but I genuinely believe that this particular part has done the job required of it.

I want to mention briefly the legal advice that has been prayed in aid. I have total respect for the legal advice that has been put forward. They are called opinions, and they are called that for a reason: they have not been tested. In another place, I listened to opinions from a range of eminent QCs about how it was entirely unconstitutional to deprive people of seats there. During the passage of the Hunting Bill, a large number of eminent QCs said it was unconstitutional and so forth. In both cases, those opinions proved to be wrong.

The opinion in question is well written and contains a great deal of coulds and mights. However, its core is about not this Bill but the 2000 Act. The NCVO and other organisations are saying that the problem is the 2000 Act. That is not where we were in Committee, when we were talking about this Bill. I understand why the NCVO wishes to reopen the 2000 Act, but that is not the issue before us. It was a fine argument to make 13 years ago, but it is the wrong one now. The Act has been in force for two elections, 2005 and 2010, which have clearly demonstrated that the legislation can be lived with.

I know that others wish to speak. In conclusion, I should say that the amendments that I tabled and withdrew and the promise given by Front Benchers have been fulfilled. Some of the lobby letters that I have received, saying that this legislation is a gagging Bill, vastly overstate their case and fail entirely to put forward the need to ensure that the underlying principle of British politics—that people cannot buy a seat in the House or a proposition—should be upheld. That is why I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that the amendments do the job that I asked them to do. They should support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

Following on from that interesting vote, I should like to point out that had 19 more colleagues voted for the amendment rather than against it, it would have been carried. I am sure that that will be noted by the thousands of people who have sent in requests to colleagues to consider their plight seriously. The fact is that those requests have been ignored by large numbers of Members of Parliament who might well feel that the voluntary and community sectors will be their supporters in the next election. I do not know whether the law will now mean that those people will be able to be prosecuted in some way, but I am sure that the voluntary sector and the charities will study the record with great interest. I also hope that they will study the record of our deliberations on clause 27.

Clause 27 is not about symbols or about gagging, as our previous discussions have been. It is about cash. It is about the ability of charities to put across their point of view, to have the money to do that, and to be able to enjoy the interaction with the democratic process that they have come to know in recent years. This is not about a Government handout or about some back-door way of influencing the Government. It is not about charities having to pay, as a professional lobbyist might. It is about their freedom to enter the democratic process in an election year. That is a right that they have enjoyed, but it is going to be changed if we allow clause 27 to go through tonight. That is why I wish to notify the Chair that I should like to call a vote on amendment 102. That will allow every Member of Parliament to make a simple statement by answering a very straightforward, black-and-white, yes-or-no question. They could state that the activity that charities have hitherto enjoyed in interacting with our democracy in an election year is fine and that they should continue to be able to do so, and that whatever else we have said about the Bill, the expenditure limits set out before clause 27 are okay. Alternatively, they could endorse the provisions in clause 27.

Those Members who have laboured through the Committee and Report stages of the Bill have probably heard this before. When the Select Committee was denied the right to give the Bill proper pre-legislative scrutiny, we attempted hurriedly to pull together witnesses. They and members of my Select Committee—some of whom are in the Chamber this evening—gave up their time to do some really quick pre-legislative scrutiny. That is absolutely not the way to do it.

One thing that I can say about this Bill—and one thing that we will remember about it—is that there are lots of firsts and lots of examples of how not to conduct a proper legislative process. It may be that the Electoral Commission, set up to deal with these issues, has not been listened to. The Government attitude seems to be, “Don’t let’s talk to them; don’t even tell them that we are changing their terms of reference until very late in the day”; and “Let’s not involve the people who are affected until we have drafted a Bill and it is virtually ready to go into print. At that point, perhaps we will talk to them”; and “Let’s not involve Parliament—a body so contemptible and useless that we do not want to involve this bunch of clowns in a pre-legislative process so that evidence from outside bodies could be gathered and people could come in and provide some advice.” Parliament, it seems, deserves total contempt—“They do not get to do any pre-legislative scrutiny until after a Bill is published; and if they want to do that, we will give them three working days between the Bill’s publication and its Second Reading.”

If we reflect on all that, we can see that the absence of proper pre-legislative scrutiny is not the worst crime that we have seen with this Bill. When it comes to abuse of the legislative process, this is about as bad it gets. Our hope has to be that our unelected friends down the other end of the corridor in the other place will see that, due to the lack of time Parliament has had to discuss the Bill and the lack of input from those affected by it, clause 27 shows the legislative process at its most pernicious. Why? Because as yet—perhaps this is the night—no justification, no evidence and no reason has been given for why clause 27 should exist. I know that the Deputy Leader of the House has been working hard on this during the Bill’s parliamentary stages, and I am sure that tonight is going to be the night on which he is going to tell us why there is a clause 27. Our Select Committee looked pretty hard at clause 27. We asked the Government, as well as other people, to give evidence to us, but we could not find the reason for it. I remain optimistic that we are actually going to hear it tonight, which would be a good occasion for all of us and a parliamentary first on this Bill.

What the Select Committee said about the lack of evidence in this area was:

“We have stated already that we have not seen adequate evidence for the setting of the new thresholds”—

the lower thresholds—

“for expenditure at the levels to be imposed by Part 2 of the Bill. The Government must explain the reasoning behind its decisions during the passage of the Bill. Even if the Government can make the case for imposing lower levels, it must be able to give a convincing account of why it has chosen these particular limits”—

I shall come back to that later in my remarks—

“as opposed to any others. If it cannot do so, we”—

the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee, comprising Members of all parties—

“recommend that the existing levels continue to apply until such point as the case for change has been made.”

Such was the summation and conclusion of the Select Committee on clause 27. No case has been made, and certainly no case has yet been made about the figures. Why have particular limits been chosen? Again, we are hopeful that the Deputy Leader of the House will tell us this evening.

I understand that we may be seeking a vote at some early moment, so I shall speed through my remarks.

[John Thurso]

It is my understanding that clause 27 relates not to actual expenditure, but to the point at which registration has to happen. What is the hon. Gentleman’s view of the fact that registration is different as between England and the other parts of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Allen]

I am afraid I do not have a view on that. Being the Chair of a Select Committee is almost like being Speaker Lenthall. I can speak only when my Committee has considered some evidence, and the time that we were allowed in which to consider Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in respect of England was not sufficient.

Today we have heard of an interesting new development relating to the Bill’s impact—now, allegedly, no impact—on the referendums in Scotland. As of yesterday, the Electoral Commission was awaiting a view on what the impact would be, and no impact assessment had been done until, today, we heard some words from the Deputy Leader of the House.

Let me repeat that the Deputy Leader of the House is a very reasonable man, and very easy to do business with—if that does not condemn his political career—but neither he nor the Leader of the House will decide these matters. I think that Mr Salmond may have a view. I think that other friends in Scotland—perhaps people who are litigious—may have a view. Then it will be the judges who decide, not that kind-hearted Deputy Leader whom we have here in the House of Commons. It will not be his judgment; it will be the judgment of others.

I would love to have had the chance to explore those additional points, and perhaps if we vote down clause 27—which is the objective of amendment 102—we will give ourselves the option of doing so. Perhaps we will give ourselves the option of allowing the Government to think sensibly about the expenditure limits, and will give the Government the option of making a case that they have signally failed to make so far during the very truncated progress of the Bill.

Is this measure necessary? Lord Hodgson produced a very thorough report on the Charities Act 2006, in which he said that the current arguments were working very well indeed, and the Cabinet Office stated in its response that the regulations were working well. We have been searching hard for people who believe that there is a serious problem that we need to address. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said earlier that in many respects part 2 was a solution looking for a problem, and here we go again.

We still do not quite know where all this stuff came from, which is partly because when my Select Committee, on behalf of the House, examined a consultative paper on the Bill, that consultative paper was all about lobbying and lobbyists. What we have before us now is something that none of us knew about until the end of July, one day before the House went into recess. Lo and behold, we did not get a lobbying Bill; we got a lobbying Bill, a Bill on limiting the activities of charities, and a Bill on this, that and the other. We got two thirds of a new Bill added to the one third that had been given cursory scrutiny by Committees of the House.

No wonder my colleagues are a little confused, and no wonder people outside feel that there is a lack of clarity about what the Government intend. We can have meetings with Government officials, finally. We can have a meeting with a Minister, finally. But if a Bill has popped out of the ether at the end of July, and if press releases are issued as part of a spin on the Bill and people feel that they are inaccurate, that does not provide clarity; it just adds to the confusion. That is why I think it appropriate to use a word that became commonplace in another context, and to suggest that there should be a pause in the Bill. That would enable scrutiny to take place, would enable me to answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), and would enable the House to set up a proper process of scrutiny so that all the questions could be answered. How demeaning it is that the House cannot do that at present! We hope—fingers crossed—that the unelected people at the other end of the Corridor will help us out, and will put some of these matters right.

The case has not been proved. Whether we look at Lord Hodgson’s report on the Charities Act or at the Cabinet Office’s response, we see no evidence that people have demanded that these cuts in the expenditure of charities and limits on their ability to interact with us in an election year should be imposed.

I get a real kick out of the fact that we interact with our friends in the charitable and voluntary sector both in the normal way and when we come to a pre-election period, which is the point at which they can say, “Hey, come here. We want to hear from you. What’s your view on this? Where are you on the debate between badger cull or badger badge-wearing?” The hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) is familiar with that topic. “What’s your view on foxhunting? What about the League Against Cruel Sports or the Countryside Alliance?” That is the lifeblood of our democracy and it is writ large in our democracy in pre-election years.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso]

Let me begin by reiterating what I said on Second Reading. I remain a great fan of pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Bill would undoubtedly have benefited from it. Notwithstanding that—as I also said on Second Reading—I want to see the Bill on the statute book. I wish that it had included more of the lobbying element, and I also wish that some aspects of part 2 had been better understood before we reached them. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my friends on the Government Front Bench for considering the proposals in my amendment and presenting them to the House today, and I am pleased that they have been accepted. I think that the Bill has been significantly improved as a result.

There remain a number of issues that will have to be dealt with in the other place, including the issue of controlled expenditure limits. I was unable to intervene in the debate on that subject, but I can say now that I have no problem with the reduction to £5,000. The limit has been £5,000 in Scotland since 2000, and there has never been any difficulty with it. However, I have a very big question to ask about why there should be any difference between the limits applying to Edinburgh and Birmingham. Why not have the same limit for both? I am happy for the amount to fall, but I should prefer it to be the same throughout the United Kingdom. I am also slightly concerned about the time limits prior to elections. All those matters will have to be dealt with in the other place, and examined by us again when the Bill returns to the Commons.

My biggest disappointment in the Bill concerns the way in which the Opposition have chosen to deal with it. As always, I listened with awe and admiration to what was said by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), but I must tell her that if there was ever an example of maximum hyperbole with the best skill chasing minimum fact, it was her speech. It is a great shame, because I think a dampening effect may come from a complete misunderstanding of both the intentions of the Bill and what it will actually do. That will dissipate with time, but it is a shame that that has been raised at this point.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Viscount Thurso Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

It is not just the Minister who has been inundated with people’s views. That is not a point of order because, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the debate has been guillotined and is time limited. I am sure, however, that hon. Members have taken on board the comments made.

Clause 26

Meaning of “controlled expenditure”

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 47, page 12, line 23, leave out ‘subsections (2) to (4)’ and insert ‘subsection (2)’.’.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 62, page 12, line 24, leave out subsections (2) to (4).

Amendment 46, page 12, line 28, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

Amendment 131, page 12, leave out lines 31 to line 3 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; or

(b) otherwise enhancing the standing—

(i) of any such party of parties; or

(ii) of any such candidates,

with the electorate in connections with future relevant elections (whether imminent or otherwise).’.

Amendment 64, page 12, line 31, leave out ‘or in connection with’.

Amendment 168, page 13, line 30, at end insert—

‘() the amendments made by this Part shall not apply to elections to the Scottish Parliament, unless the Scottish Parliament so resolves.’.

Amendment 169, page 13, line 30, at end insert—

‘() the amendments made by this Part shall not apply to charities registered in the Scottish Charity Register maintained under section 3 of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 in relation to Scotland.’.

Amendment 132, in schedule 3, page 55, line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—

‘Any manifesto or other document setting out the third party’s view on the policies of one or more registered parties or of any category of registered parties or candidates.’.

Amendment 133, page 55, line 32, at end add—

‘in connection with an election campaign’.

Amendment 134, page 55, leave out lines 40 to line 4 on page 56.

Amendment 162, page 56, line 15, at end insert—

(c) in respect of staffing costs incurred for election purposes, as defined in section 85(3).’.

Amendment 167, page 56, line 15, at end insert—

‘(c) in respect of the remuneration or allowances payable to any member of the staff (whether permanent or otherwise) of the third party.’.

New clause 4—Charity or non-party campaigning

‘Nothing in Part 2 of this Act shall limit the capacity of a charity or non-party campaigning organisation to comment on public policy in so far as it does not seek to influence the outcome of an election in so doing.’.

New clause 6—Expenditure within third party groups

‘(1) Part 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (controls relating to third party national election campaigns) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 87 insert—

“87A Expenditure within third party groups

(1) For the purposes of this Part, third parties which have formed part of a group of third parties (“a group”), for the purposes of undertaking activities to influence the outcome of an election, have only a duty to account to the regulator for expenditure that the third party has incurred for election purposes, as defined in section 85(3), and not for expenditure by the group or groups of which they have formed part.

(2) Each group shall designate a person or persons responsible for reporting to the regulator expenditure by the group incurred for election purposes.

(3) A donation by a third party to a group for the purposes of undertaking activities to influence the outcome of an election shall count towards the expenditure limits established in section 94 and Schedule 10.”.’.

New clause 9—Impact of Part 2 on elections and referendums in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

‘Within two months of the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, the Electoral Commission and the Minister shall lay a report before both Houses of Parliament containing—

(a) an assessment of the separate and specific impacts of Part 2 of this Act on third-party engagement in elections to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and to the House of Commons in respect of constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and

(b) an assessment of the impact of Part 2 of the Act on referendums held or to be held in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.’.

New clause 10—Assessment of effect of third party campaigning on UK elections

‘(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must set out a report that includes his assessment of the effect that the actions of third party campaigning has had at elections in the UK, which shall include—

(a) an assessment of the impact of third party national election campaigns as regulated by Part IV of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000,

(b) the impact of any other third party campaigns which in his opinion have had an impact on elections,

(c) evidence of public opinion on the benefits and adverse impacts of third party activity at election time, and

(d) an assessment of the existing controls on third party campaigning at elections in the UK, and how these compare to other countries.

(2) In drawing up the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Electoral Commission,

(b) the Charities Commission,

(c) the Governments of the devolved nations,

(d) political parties,

(e) such persons or organisations who campaign to affect policies or politics,

(f) such persons who may publish opinions, whether on paper or electronically, that may be intended to influence policies or politics, and

(g) any other person he considers could be affected by controls on third party campaigning.’.

Clause stand part.

Schedule 3 stand part.

[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 Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I support the hon. Gentleman’s arguments and his attempts to amend clause 26, but Opposition Members have a lot of experience of the gap between what Ministers say and what they do. The clause is a noose around the neck of democratic election debate. It gags those who have a passion to play a part in challenging politicians, and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, it is a curb on the campaigning activities of trade unions, charities, Churches and others. If the Minister produces amendments on Report that do not do what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends want, will he vote against them?

[John Thurso]

I remember having very happy intercourse with the right hon. Gentleman when he was at the Dispatch Box, so I will maintain my benign view and wait to see the outcome before making any such decisions.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the status quo is perfection when, in recent years, groups such as the Countryside Alliance and individuals such as Lord Ashcroft have, between elections, targeted huge resources in a few marginal constituencies to affect the result of the vote? Should not that abuse be reformed?

[John Thurso]

My understanding is that that is precisely what clause 26 intends to do, and I sincerely hope it succeeds.

[Mr Allen]

May I put on record my thanks to the Minister for making it clear that there will be clear words in the Bill that meet the hon. Gentleman’s proposal in amendment 47, and that meet the proposals of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform? The provisions must be clear in the Bill, and I welcome the fact that the Government have engaged in the process on clause 26. There are 30 or 40 clauses, and I hope that this sets a precedent for other clauses that are subject to equally fierce criticism from the charitable and voluntary sectors.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

rose—

[John Thurso]

Before I speak to new clause 4, I will give way to the hon. Lady.

[Susan Elan Jones]

Has the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to read the NCVO parliamentary briefing from yesterday? It will seek legal advice on the new wording and go to the Electoral Commission. It expresses great concern that voluntary organisations could be subject to “ambiguous and damaging legislation” and makes the point that the

“list of activities that count towards controlled expenditure remain neither clear nor workable”.

The Minister’s suggestion that he has suddenly achieved great consensus does not seem to agree with the spirit of the NCVO briefing.

[John Thurso]

I have read that briefing, but I am speaking to amendment 47 to clause 26. My understanding is that it will meet the concerns I have expressed, but I will wait to see what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House says before coming to a final decision.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

The hon. Gentleman has been generous in taking interventions. The Deputy Leader of the House has indicated that the Government will amend the Bill on Report, but what if the Government do not introduce the essential and necessary amendments to clause 26? What assessment has the hon. Gentleman made of the impact of part 2 of the Bill, unamended, on charities?

[John Thurso]

We are in Committee, and a great many amendments have been tabled. I will make a judgment on exactly what the Bill does at the end of Committee and Report. I have expressed concerns and tabled amendments, and would like to see how we get on.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

The Electoral Commission has described the provisions of part 2 as making major changes that will widen the range of activities that are regulated if they are carried out for election purposes. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the measure could impact on newspapers’ ability to endorse either or both political parties and individual candidates, and thus impact on freedom of the press?

[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.

[Tom Brake]

To be helpful to my hon. Friend, there is a specific exemption for newspapers in the 2000 Act.

[John Thurso]

I am most grateful to the Minister.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

rose—

[John Thurso]

I will give way for the last time—I am in danger of being unable to intervene on my own speech.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. Does he agree that, when the Government clarify their position on clause 26, they should also clarify the problem they believe they are fixing in part 2 of the Bill? Does he agree with the Government’s assessment that there is too much campaigning at election time? How much democracy does he believe the Government will feel comfortable with?

[John Thurso]

I set out my answer to that question at the outset of my speech. I hope that nothing in the Bill stops any charity or voluntary organisation campaigning vigorously for a policy outcome. However, any third-party organisation or group campaigning on the outcome of an election—for or against a particular candidate or party—should be within the scope of the Bill and under the same rules as anybody else engaging in the political process. That is my understanding of the top line and I hope we can get to that position.

New clause 4 seeks to assist on precisely that point. It would mean that the intention of the Bill is clear and beyond doubt or peradventure. As I have stated, there is no intention to stop any group campaigning for a policy. My proposal would mean we have clarity that the purpose of the Bill is to stop people politicking for a particular result except within the rules.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) asked about the student tuition fee campaign at the last election and said that it would not be allowed under the Bill. In fact, the student tuition fee campaign would not, as I understand it, be caught by the legislation. New clause 4 seeks to make that absolutely clear.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I support new clause 4 and the other proposals my hon. Friend has tabled. Part 2 of the Bill is still taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Following Friday’s meeting, it is clear that organisations such as the NCVO are reassured—[Interruption.] They are reassured but not entirely supportive of the Bill or of part 2. I encourage my hon. Friend to ensure that the Government continue their conversation with the NCVO and the charitable sector to ensure we get it right.

[John Thurso]

My hon. Friend makes a good point.

New clause 4 speaks for itself. The arguments I have made are quite clear. I hope my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will accept this extraordinarily well-drafted and brilliant new clause. At the very least, I should like a clear explanation of why it might not be needed and how we can achieve the same result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point. There has been a carefully considered process in Scotland, involving a partnership between the Electoral Commission and other stakeholders, to ensure that we have a fair, democratic and open debate around the referendum. I agree entirely with him that it would be counter-productive if this legislation were to cut across that process. That is one more reason for us to go back and look at the process in more depth.

It is not just in the run-up to elections that charities and civil society organisations take these issues seriously—they take them seriously throughout the electoral cycle. Fundamentally, I do not think that charities should have to cope with an extra set of regulations that overlap so extensively with existing charity law and other forms of regulation that seem to be working well. Charity regulation is certainly working well in Scotland, and since the introduction of the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator in 2005, governance has been strengthened across the voluntary sector, and accountability has improved dramatically right across the sector in the most recent few years.

Charities play an enormously important role in our democratic process. They not only make the voices of their members and service users heard, but they actively influence and shape public policy in ways that are already much more transparent and accountable than is the case with corporate lobbying. I can think of numerous examples of pieces of legislation that have been actively enhanced by the input of charities, with far-reaching consequences for the quality of life of thousands of people. I think in particular of the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002, which was significantly amended by the efforts of stakeholders, including a range of small specialist health charities and large campaigning organisations working together to influence legislation and make it fit for the 21st century.

When I look back at the kinds of activities undertaken, fully transparently and accountably, by the charities involved in lobbying around that Bill, I can see that some of them would almost certainly have fallen within the terms of third-party campaigning proposed in the Bill. Some of the smaller organisations, particularly those with perhaps only one or two members of staff, advocating on behalf of small numbers of people perhaps with a rare condition, would simply have opted out of that discussion because they would not have had the resources to navigate the regulatory framework. That would have been to the enormous detriment of the legislation that finally emerged. As a society, we are all better off because of the inclusion of such organisations in the democratic process.

[John Thurso]

I have been listening carefully to all the arguments, particularly those of the hon. Lady, but I would really like to know the answer to this particular question. She is talking about legislation and about what I would consider to be absolutely proper lobbying by charities and the voluntary sector to achieve the best outcome for that legislation. I welcome and support all of that, but I am unaware that any of that activity would fall under the provisions of part 2 of this Bill, so I would be grateful if the hon. Lady could help me on that.

[Dr Whiteford]

The key point I am trying to make is that those organisations are already regulated, and we do not need any duplication of that regulation. A clear example I could give the hon. Gentleman would be the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Had this Bill been in force, it would have coincided with the 2010 general election, so the cross-party political consensus created around that Act—world-leading legislation—simply would not have happened. It was the key role of civil society actors that enabled and facilitated the emergence of that consensus. That is one of the reasons I am concerned that the Bill in its current form will inhibit democratic debate and not move us any further forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Viscount Thurso Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I rise to broadly support the Bill and to urge my colleagues to resist the amendment tabled by the Opposition. I do so with some reservations, which I will come to in the course of my remarks.

I begin by picking up the point that has been made by a number of hon. and right hon. Members about pre-legislative scrutiny. I have always been in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny. I think virtually every Bill is improved by it, although this time last year—or maybe the year before; how time flies—I had the rather sad experience of serving on the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill, and look where that got us. Nevertheless, I have to say that pre-legislative scrutiny and proper scrutiny of legislation is the best way to defuse potential misunderstandings and to come to the true nature of what is being proposed.

The reason why I think the House should support this Bill’s Second Reading is that I truly believe it is a step forward, although it is not entirely the step forward it could be. I believe there are a number of misunderstandings, and that has certainly been true of some of today’s interventions. I think that pre-legislative scrutiny would have provided the opportunity to address them such that they might have been dealt with and we might have had clarity prior to proceedings. Although this is by no means a perfect Bill—what Bill ever is?—it is a reasonable start in the direction of transparency on lobbying. Therefore, I prefer to vote for it and then, I hope, see changes made during its consideration in Committee, rather than vote against it at this stage.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

A large amount of time has been provided to consider the Bill on the Floor of the House, but does my hon. Friend agree that pre-legislative scrutiny is important and that a large amount of time in Committee and on Report does not make up for the lack of it?

[John Thurso]

My hon. Friend is correct. That is exactly the point that I was making. Those are two different processes that arrive at different conclusions. However, we are where we are. I regret that we have not had pre-legislative scrutiny, but we will have three days in Committee and two days on consideration. I hope that we use that time wisely to explore all the issues before us.

[Mr Tom Harris]

The hon. Gentleman’s concern over the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny will have been heard on both sides of the House. Given that lack of scrutiny, will he join us in the Lobby to vote down the programme motion and to provide a more adequate amount of time to debate the Bill on the Floor of the House?

[John Thurso]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I will not do that because it would not introduce pre-legislative scrutiny. There are three days to debate the Bill in Committee. There are some important big issues, but not a huge number of them, so we will probably have enough time to debate them in the days that are available.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso]

I am terribly sorry, but we are time limited and two interventions is our lot. I am afraid that that is it for the time being, unless I get ahead of myself, which is always possible.

In the Bill, we are trying to introduce more transparency into areas that, by common consent on both sides of the House, require transparency. We are therefore required to act. We are looking to shed light on the hidden influence of big business, big money and big power.

I want to make it absolutely clear, as I did in the Opposition debate some 10 weeks ago, that lobbying is a good and integral part of the political process. When somebody comes to lobby me because they are my constituent or because I sit on a certain Committee, I consider that to be an important part of how I inform myself so that I may take reasonable decisions, ask good questions in Committees or act in the interests of my constituents. I would be very concerned if I felt that anything stood in the way of my doing that on behalf of my constituents or with regard to my work on a Committee. As far as I can see, nothing in the Bill will do that. I understand that some Opposition Members feel differently, but I believe that those issues can be worked out during the passage of the Bill.

We are proposing something relatively small and light touch. I would describe it as a good start. When an independent lobbyist—a company that lobbies for profit and is not associated with a particular company—is lobbying in a relatively secretive way and has the power to influence what is happening in our lives, it is right that those people should be registered and that we should be aware of what they are seeking to do. The Bill will not do that entirely, but it will not do anything that stops that from happening. It is a building block that may be built on.

Part 1 of the Bill provides for a statutory register of lobbyists, which was in our manifesto and the coalition agreement. The Liberal Democrats have pushed hard for that to be implemented. I am therefore delighted that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House is involved in introducing the Bill. The register is something that we very much wanted to see. It is deliberately light touch and deals with an existing gap in the transparency arrangements for communication between third-party lobbyists and Ministers.

The coalition is the first Government to publish quarterly data on ministerial meetings. In that way, some sunlight that has never before shone on such ministerial activities has shone on them and we have more idea of what is going on. That could be improved and done a little more timeously, and some of the detail could be expanded on. It is not overly helpful to have a series of entries that say “general discussion” or whatever the term might be. It is very much a work in progress. However, I certainly would not wish to criticise the Government for starting something that we have never had before, even if I think that it could be improved. It is an important step forward.

The inclusion of third-party lobbyists means that we will be able to ascertain on behalf of which firm lobbying is taking place. That will fill a degree of the gap.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[John Thurso]

If it is quick.

[Duncan Hames]

On that point, when a registered lobbyist has a large number of clients, does my hon. Friend believe that the introduction of registration will enable the public to determine for which client they were lobbying in any given meeting with a Minister?

[John Thurso]

I am not entirely certain of the answer to that question, but I hope that will be the case. Perhaps when the Deputy Leader of the House responds, he might reply to that question.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Thurso]

I am terribly sorry, but that clock is a tough master.

Much of today’s contention has been about part 2. I believe that it is positive that people are motivated to campaign for what they believe in. It is obvious that such activity is moving away from traditional political parties and into third-party organisations. However, when campaigning is of a political nature, it is right that it should be controlled properly. That is an accepted principle in the current legislation, to which the Bill proposes amendments.

My understanding of the purpose of part 2 is that somebody who seeks to affect the outcome of the election—that is, a particular candidate or party will benefit from their actions—will be controlled. If, on the other hand, they offer policies to all parties in the hope that they will be taken up, they will not be included. Very basically, I understand that to be the core of what we are doing.

[Thomas Docherty]

That is not the case.

[John Thurso]

I believe that that is what the Bill sets out to do. That is an appropriate and good measure to take. If I am wrong, the way to flush that out is to table amendments in Committee.

I heard, as hon. Members across the House will have heard, the assurance that was given by the Leader of the House on that point. He stated clearly what the objective was and gave the commitment that if, for any reason, that objective was not met by the Bill as currently drafted, he would accept amendments or seek to make amendments to achieve the objective. There is good will on the part of Ministers to deal with something that is an appropriate addition to the legislation.

Under the current regulatory regime, third parties can spend a considerable amount of money. In the 2010 election, 25 third parties spent £3 million. I believe that the reduction that we are making and the fact that it will not be possible to target funds into one constituency are rather important. I was most taken by the intervention by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). I am with him, as I always am. He and I make common cause on many matters. There are a number of organisations that will be controlled that both he and I would like to see controlled. A foreign tycoon who funds a third party that sets out to spend a fortune in one constituency will be dealt with in the Bill.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso]

I will not, I am afraid.

Such examples would not have been dealt with before. That is an important step forward. I accept that there might be details that do not accord with the principle that has been set out, but we can flush those out in Committee and in later stages.

Part 3, which seeks to establish transparency in the membership numbers of trade unions, is important. There was a well-made point towards the end of the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House, which I will not follow up. Frankly, it is a pretty good principle and one that we should follow.

In conclusion, this is not a perfect Bill, but it responds in a measured way to a need that is evident and clear. It is a start and will, in all probability, be built on in the future. I seriously urge the House to vote for Second Reading and to decline the amendment so that we can at least have that debate.

Lobbying

Viscount Thurso Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer). Let me pick up on his last point: what we are after is transparency. I think there is agreement across the House on the need for transparency and to ensure that big business, big money and big power are accountable in politics. Today’s debate is very much about how best to try to achieve that or, at least, to find a starting point.

I was grateful that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) began, as many other Members have, by stressing the importance of good lobbying and the fact that we in Parliament cannot do our jobs without a degree of lobbying. Members have obviously mentioned their constituents and, like the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, I have regular surgeries across 3,800 square miles. I travelled 207 miles last weekend to do surgeries at diametrically opposite ends of the constituency, celebrating national care homes day by visiting all the registered homes in the constituency.

At my constituency surgery in Alness, a lady came to ask me about the regulations for herbalists. I have written to the Minister on her behalf and I consider that to be absolutely the kind of thing I should be doing as a constituency MP. On another level, as a member of the Treasury Committee and a former member of the now completed Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, I have received a considerable amount of evidence from a wide range of bodies. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish whether they are giving me evidence or lobbying me. I am absolutely certain that in both cases my ability to have a reasoned discussion with the witnesses who have appeared before me has depended on my ability to access different points of view and different thoughts coming from different parts of the financial services industry.

It is right that we should be open to lobbying in the sense that we should hear what different people have to say. Our job is to assess what is said and come to a reasonable decision in our deliberations, whether in Select Committee or when considering legislation. As sometimes happens, the tendency to dismiss lobbyists and lobbying as a wrong process is to misunderstand how Parliament should work.

We are really talking about access to power for the purposes of diverting what power might otherwise do. Part of the problem that we will have with the legislation is working out where power is. With Ministers, it is pretty straightforward. If I go and lobby the Secretary of State for Energy about what is happening at Dounreay, it is pretty clear why I have gone to see him. If Babcock does the same, it is also pretty clear what is happening. The problem is when people have access to those in power in a way that is not revealed. An example was given this morning when Sir Mervyn King made his last appearance before the Treasury Select Committee. The Chairman asked him a question about lessons learned. He said that one of the most important things was that the Prudential Regulation Authority, the body that will control the banks, had the support of Ministers and Parliament such that the kind of lobbying that took place in the past—when bankers went to their supervisors to ask for a lighter judgment on supervision and the telephone calls he mentioned to No. 11 and sometimes No. 10—could not happen. That is what we really have to seek to expose.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman cited Babcock. That is a prime example that shows why the Bill must cover everyone. Babcock is a multinational company that has a rail division, a nuclear division and a defence division. Simply to say that Babcock has been to see a Minister provides no transparency. So it has to be all lobbyists.

[John Thurso]

I am going to disagree with the hon. Gentleman in a moment for a simple reason. In relation to visiting a Minister, the key is not in the Bill or in any legislation that we might pass. The key is the ministerial code; the key is the fact that the visits by that company or any other company will be published. I agree with hon. Members who said that there should be more information; wider detail should be published about meetings. At the moment, the quarterly register often just says “general discussion”, and that is not good enough. I urge those who are responsible for the ministerial code to look at toughening it up in some way and perhaps publishing the code a little more often than quarterly. Such things could be done tomorrow; they do not require legislation.

The second point is the difference between in-house and third-party lobbyists. I think we are all going in the same direction, but it seems to me that one has to start somewhere. To me, the third-party lobbyists are a good place to start. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said, it is better to make a start than to go for perfection. If Oxfam turns up to see the Secretary of State for International Development, it is pretty obvious what is going to be talked about. It is far more important that when Messrs Grabit and Nickit turn up to lobby on behalf of an unknown firm, we have a registration of who they are and what they do. That is far more important than making every single company that has someone in house working for them register that fact.

In my party’s 2001 conference motion on regulation of professional parliamentary lobbying, which I am sure was on everyone’s lips at the time, we said:

“No parliamentarian … at Westminster should be a director of, an employee of, receive any reward from or hold a stake in any of the duly registered professional parliamentary lobbying companies. … A statutory register of such professional lobbying firms should be set up and supervised by the Commissioner on Parliamentary Standards.”

In 2006, my colleague David Howarth, the then Member for Cambridge, sought to insert an amendment into the Companies Bill to cap the amount spent on lobbying. The then Government declined to accept it. So my party has a long history of seeking to do something about lobbying. The important thing now is to be clear who is doing the lobbying. That is why registering the professional lobbyists is so important.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Is not one of the problems of the recent scandal not so much the lobbying but the payment of politicians, who may be part of the operation of that lobbying. It is not the lobbying per se; it is the payment, the money, the feeling of corruption.

[John Thurso]

I am delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) to his place. That is something I touched on at the beginning of my remarks. He makes an important point. In the recent scandals involving a Member of this House and three Members of the other place, nothing in this Bill or any other Bill on lobbying would have changed anything. What they did is already against the rules. My advice to any Member of this House is that the day someone comes to them and says, “Would you like £24,000?”, they are being offered a sting. None of us is worth that amount.

I was once almost the victim of a sting. A gentleman came to see me and asked me if I would chair his company. I said, “Yes, but first I need to do due diligence and see a set of accounts. Secondly, you have to look at my CV and see whether I have the skills you want. Thirdly, if it is ever anything to do with Parliament, I can have nothing whatever to do with it.” Needless to say, I never heard from him again.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Thurso]

I have taken two interventions so I would like to get to the end of my speech.

I hope that the Bill will deal with third-party, non-party controlled expenditure and measures to regulate non-party actors who seek to influence elections. This touches on the whole question of the trade unions. The best way is simply for the trade unions to be treated in the same way as any other body according to the third-party, non-party controlled expenditure rules. If we had those rules, requirements made of trade unions would be made by way of alterations to the third-party controlled expenditure rules rather than to any trade union rules, which is absolutely the right way forward.

It is right that we look at lobbying and make sure that we have a register. It is too late for cross-party talks. We tried that with the House of Lords and look where it got us. I am scarred by that. We should just get on with it and make sure that it happens.

My inclination is towards pre-legislative scrutiny. I doubt that it is going to happen, but the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee might take a leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). He went ahead with it himself on the Treasury Committee and I am sure that his Committee will just go ahead and do it. It will probably be an invaluable report. I look forward to supporting the Government in the Lobby and making sure that matters come to fruition and we see a Bill as soon as possible.

House of Commons Administration Estimate

Viscount Thurso Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That the following new Standing Order be made—

‘Motions and amendments with a financial consequence for the House of Commons Administration Estimate.

(1) Motions which would have a direct consequence of additional expenditure under the House of Commons: Administration Estimate estimated to be £50,000 or more shall not be considered by the House unless a memorandum setting out their expected financial consequences has been made available to the House.

(2) The Accounting Officer shall make such a memorandum available to the House within a reasonable time of a motion to which this Order applies being tabled.

(3)(a) This Order shall also apply to amendments to motions which would have the expenditure consequences set out in paragraph (1), but the absence of such a memorandum shall not prevent the House from considering such an amendment.

(b) In his decision as to the selection of such an amendment, the Speaker shall, in addition to such other considerations as may, in his view, be relevant, take into account whether sufficient time has been available for the House to be provided with adequate information regarding the financial consequences.

(4) The Speaker shall decide whether a motion or amendment falls within the terms of this Order.’.

The motion is in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Finance and Services Committee’s first report of this Parliament begins:

“In the current Parliament, we have been seeking to ensure that the House Administration’s financial priorities are determined on a coherent basis by Members of this House, so that the House’s spending meets the needs of the House as a whole”.

Enabling hon. Members as a whole to continue to determine that on a coherent basis is at the heart of the motion.

Earlier in this Session, we had an excellent debate on the savings plan and the medium-term financial strategy, which enabled Members to vote on various aspects of our financial proceedings and to take charge of both the budget and the plans of the administration estimate. I welcomed that move, and I believe it was welcomed by many other Members. That goes to reinforcing the concept and the process by which the finances of the House are dealt with on a coherent basis by Members of the House. The motion is based on the simple proposition that, if the House is making a decision with a significant financial impact on its budget, it should have access to the basic information required on the cost and other financial consequences, so that it can make the decision in a coherent way.

For example, in the past we have had Government proposals to set up Select Committees. Each Select Committee has a considerable cost impact—it is in the order of £500,000 a year. When the Government introduce legislation, we expect them to tell us what the financial impact will be. It therefore seems entirely reasonable that the House should know about such financial impacts. Previously, there has perhaps been an expectation that extra costs could always be accommodated regardless, but in these days when we want to ensure that costs are properly considered, it is right that we have the knowledge to make such decisions.

The proposal was made by the Finance and Services Committee. Before we arrived at the current text, it was discussed by the House of Commons Commission, and discussed on a number of occasions by the Procedure Committee and the Leader of the House. The current text is broadly agreed by all in principle. There were a number of doubts about the wording among members of the Procedure Committee, but I hope they have been dealt with in the current text.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether, if this proposal had been in operation two or three years ago, Members of the House would have had any say in the last remaining day switchboard moving to Southampton on 8 May? Anyone phoning the House of Commons, night or day, will be talking to someone based in Southampton, and when I rang in the evening last week—the night switchboard has already moved—the location of Derby Gate was not even known. Would that have been any different? Would we, as Members of Parliament, have had any say?

[John Thurso]

The hon. Lady has raised this matter tenaciously; indeed, she has raised it with me. The answer is that if the matter were put before the House in a motion, the financial consequence would have to be revealed. If it were not, and was put together by way of the financial plan, the debate such as the one we had last year would have been exactly the place to have raised such a matter. The two things go together, and that is entirely in keeping with allowing Members a say on such things in future.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

One potential consequence of the Standing Order would be that, if the accounting officer so wished, he could decline to put the financial details into the House domain and therefore the debate on the motion could not happen. What does the hon. Gentleman understand “a reasonable time frame” to mean—a day, a week, five years?

[John Thurso]

I am blessed by the fact that I would never have to make the decision; it would be a decision for Mr Speaker and his advisers. As we all know, the Speaker is always right. Therefore, whatever decision he made would be both reasonable and appropriate. It was written deliberately in such a way that the final word is with the Chair for precisely the reason that if something came up where an exception were needed, it could be dealt with. That is very important.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

May I confirm that the absence of a financial memorandum would not necessarily mean that a debate would be denied?

[John Thurso]

It is my understanding that a financial memorandum would be expected, and there are a number of occasions where it could be short and simple. If a circumstance arose in which a financial memorandum could not be prepared, it would be in the hands of Mr Speaker to make a decision. That is my understanding. If I have got that wrong, and there is a small percentage chance that that is the case, I will certainly come back to the hon. Gentleman.

The effect of the Standing Order would be to require the accounting officer to provide a memorandum for any expenditure of more than £50,000 to the administration estimate. An example of such a motion, as I mentioned earlier, would be a proposal to establish a Select Committee. The Standing Order would also require a memorandum to be provided in respect of an amendment to a motion, if it would have a similar financial impact. As less notice might be given of an amendment, the absence of a memorandum would not necessarily prevent it from being debated, but the Speaker might take that factor into account in his selection of amendments. I therefore suggest, in partially addressing my previous answer, that there would nearly always be time for a motion, but the Chair may take a view where amendments are tabled. That is the most likely consequence.

This is a very small, but important change. It follows the principle that our decisions should be coherent and based on facts, so that we can make a measured judgment, and in the hands of the Members of this House. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Viscount Thurso Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

One would think that rather than heckling in a snide and partisan manner, Ministers would be expressing concern about the millions of invisible citizens who are missing from the register.

The next general election is nearer than the last. We want the public to have more certainty about the constituencies in which they live and about who will be the candidates in the election, but if the amendment is rejected, they will know neither of those things until 2014. If we are to reinforce the connections between MPs, candidates and their constituents, we need to know the facts sooner rather than later. We need an end to the impasse, and that is what voting for the amendment would provide. Ending the impasse would bring clarity and certainty. It would also halt the work of the Boundary Commission, which would save significant amounts of money that might otherwise be wasted on a review that will not be implemented.

Agreeing with the amendment would allow us to monitor, check and rectify any deficiencies that emerge from the transition to individual voter registration. In the event of a dramatic slump in the number of eligible voters on the register, it would allow time for that to be corrected without a severe undermining of the legitimacy of parliamentary boundaries redrawn on the basis of a depleted electoral register. It would allow the next general election to be fought on the current boundaries, and would allow us to engage and register the missing millions in the meantime. It would prevent the wasting of any further money by the Boundary Commission, and it would bring certainty. That is why we will not be supporting the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment, and I hope that Members in all parts of the House will join us.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I rise to ask the House to agree with their lordships in the amendment, and to disagree with the motion to disagree. Let me, however, begin on a note of agreement with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. It is important for us to deal with this matter, and to deal with it today. It is before us now, so let us deal with it.

I want to touch briefly on what I consider to be the three main questions that confront us: the admissibility of the amendment, the substantive issues surrounding it, and what I might euphemistically refer to as the wider issues for the coalition.

Let me start with the question of admissibility. The other place is self-regulating; it is completely different from this House in that regard. Because it is self-regulating, all matters of order reside with the House collectively, not with any individual. The Clerks give advice, and it is given on the understanding, and in the belief, that it will be accepted. That is the convention, but it is a convention, not a rule. The rule is that anything their lordships decide collectively is in order. As they have so decided, that settles the matter as far as order is concerned. If anyone wants to revisit the debate, however, may I suggest they look in particular at the remarks of two Cross Benchers, both of whom served this House well as Speaker? They made very plain their reasons for voting for this amendment.

[Mr Bone]

Can my hon. Friend tell us the last time the Lords did not take the advice of the Clerks?

[John Thurso]

I am sorry, but, as a matter of fact, I cannot. All sorts of things have happened in their lordships’ House, however, and I can tell Members the last time that the asperity of speech motion was moved. I was there when the late great Lord Conrad Russell moved it, and I do not think it had been moved for 300 years before that.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention, and I will address that point later. I reiterate that I stand by the words he quotes about my having no problem with the general principle. I have put on record on many occasions how that general principle should be dealt with, however, and I will cover that point later.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I do not think any Member disagrees with the principle of having more equal seats, but several amendments were not accepted that would have made the rules governing this proposal sensible, many of them tabled by Government Members. If they had been accepted, we might not find ourselves in this position now.

[John Thurso]

My hon. Friend makes a good point.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

In the 1950s Jo Grimond said in my hearing that one of the roles of the House of Lords was to stop the House of Commons abusing the electoral process. I think that to carry on having boundaries that are old and constituencies with unequal numbers of voters is just such an abuse. What would Jo Grimond say about what is happening now?

[John Thurso]

I had the great privilege of listening to Jo Grimond on many occasions. He met his wife in my grandparents’ house and proposed to her there—and, indeed, Laura was godmother to my sister. I regularly listened to him, therefore, and I feel certain that if he was in the circumstances we are in, he would without doubt support his Liberal colleagues. [Interruption.] One has some small advantages in life.

Their lordships’ amendment 5 delays the implementation of the boundary changes until the next Parliament. There are three good reasons why this should happen, two of which have been touched on and featured in the debate in their lordships’ House, and the third I shall add. The first point is in regard to the quality of the register. Since the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill was enacted, much work has been done on that register. At the time, the best evidence was that it contained the details of about 92% of those who should be on it. As a result of work carried out by the Electoral Commission, we now know the figure is much lower, however; it is, in fact, 82%. To my mind, that is a material difference that should be addressed. We should be asked to look at that again.

[Paul Uppal]

In a genuine effort to be non-partisan, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to give his opinion on the fact that the Cross Benchers in the House of Lords overwhelmingly voted against these amendments?

[John Thurso]

I disagree with that. I went through the Lords Hansard and underlined the names of all the Cross Benchers I could see in each of the voting lists. There were slightly more of them in one list than the other, but there were quite a number in support of this amendment. I remember that one of the great dictums of their lordships’ House is that all peers are equal, so I would look to the result, which was 300 on one side and 69 or so fewer—231—on the other side.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian, so he will know that it has hitherto been the practice of the other place not to amend secondary legislation substantially—or, indeed, at all—even on some very contentious subjects and Bills over the past few Parliaments. Why, therefore, has this happened on this particular occasion?

[John Thurso]

I recall very well that, when I and others were given their P45s and left that place, one of the discussions that we had was about why on earth we in the other place should not register dissent on secondary legislation. Indeed, that has occasionally happened, which serves to demonstrate that there is a changing dynamic. Because of that changing dynamic, we need to look at the constitutional arrangements in the round, and that topic will form the substantive element of the last part of my argument.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

In the other place, by convention their lordships defer to what the Clerks say. Over the past 20 years, on the five occasions when amendments have been deemed inadmissible by the Clerks, they have deferred to the Clerks’ superior knowledge. In this House, such an amendment would be deemed to be outside the rules and we rightly follow the rules set out in “Erskine May”. Does my hon. Friend think we in this place should continue to follow those rules, or should we throw “Erskine May” in the bin?

[John Thurso]

My hon. Friend is asking me to ponder questions that go slightly above my pay grade, because one person alone can make those decisions in this House: Mr Speaker. It is entirely up to Mr Speaker to accept or reject the advice given. I therefore refer my hon. Friend to the remarks made by Baroness Boothroyd, a former Speaker of this House. She said there were occasions when she had gone against the advice given to her by the Clerks. We do not know when that happens, however, for the simple reason that that is the prerogative of the Speaker, and we accept it without question.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my noble Friend for giving way. At the Committee stage of any Bill, it is up to this House to give an instruction to consider any amendments, whether or not they have been deemed by the Clerks to be in the scope of the Bill, so this House has much the same powers as the House of Lords in this respect.

[John Thurso]

I am always deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me out on these occasions.

My first point is about the electoral register. The second point is about what has happened in regard to boundaries. We now have the benefit of the proposals that have been made. At the time of our original discussion, we did not; we were looking at the question in theory. A fascinating point arose from a discussion I had with a senior member of the Government on the other side of the coalition. I will not name the Member as it would be invidious to do so. [Hon. Members: “Go on.”] Absolutely not; my lips are sealed. He said that in a given area the proposal their experts had come up with was the one thing that had never been thought of. That is precisely what has happened in respect of my own seat. The proposed size of it gives me concern, as it would become the largest. However, in electoral terms—notionally, on the basis of the historical numbers—the change would increase my majority, although one would never boast about that in any highland seat. My constituency would go from being made up of two and a quarter counties to comprising two counties, 90% of another county and a little chunk of a fourth, none of which are linked together in any way, shape or form; none of this has any rationale of community. These areas have different local election arrangements; the seat goes through wards. The proposed seat goes all over the place, simply to squeeze in enough in respect of both the area and the numbers.

The general principle, I always agreed, has to be tailored to the other principles we have always used when setting out boundaries: the big regional variances. So I feel it is a good idea to look again at what has been proposed, now that we have seen that the actual proposals are quite different from those envisaged, in theory, at the time.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

But my hon. Friend must have thought about this when his own leader made a statement on political and constitutional reform in this House and said that the changes we are proposing will

“bring our oversized House of Commons into line with legislatures across the world.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 24.]

In other words, the changes will make the House of Commons smaller. Have legislatures around the world become bigger or has the Deputy Prime Minister, whom we both regard with affection, become a little smaller?

[John Thurso]

Let me deal with that precise point at the moment I arrive at it. First, I wish to deal with my third point of substance, which is the one that was not made in the debate. It is brief but it is important. A reduction in the size of this House increases the percentage of the payroll vote and thereby strengthens the grip of the Executive on Parliament, without there being an acceptable counterweight.

That leads me to my final point, which relates to the wider coalition issues. Let me make it absolutely clear that I supported the formation of this Government and I remain committed to them. As a Liberal Democrat, I entered this coalition because I believed in 2010 that the country needed a stable Government to deal with the financial crisis that was before us. As a member of the Treasury Committee in the previous Parliament, I had looked at many of the matters on the sovereign debt markets and was concerned, and I believe that the right decision was made.

However, when two very different parties come together to get agreement on an essential issue there has to be agreement on other areas. The red line issues—the ones we will not have at any cost or the ones we must have at any cost—are relatively straightforward to address, because we either agree them or we do not, and we are either there or we are not. All the other matters that are subject to negotiation, both individually, as policies, and, most importantly, collectively, as a slate, are much more difficult to deal with. The coalition agreement is not a pick-and-mix menu; it is an agreement. I agreed to the boundary changes—in many respects with a heavy heart—but I did so in the knowledge that the rest of that agreement acted as a counterweight. To my mind, that would occur mainly through Lords reform, which I judged would increase the check on the Executive and strengthen Parliament. For me, that was a fundamental point and I believe it is a fundamental point for all my colleagues.

[Dr Wollaston]

Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that there are many other ways in which we could reduce the size of the payroll vote in this House? That would have been perfectly possible to do by, for example, reducing the number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries or Ministers. His argument is therefore surely not an acceptable one.

[John Thurso]

Many things are possible, but I have to deal with what is in the agreement and that is the key point.

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Gentleman said that this vote was linked to Lords reform. His leader does not think that, as he has said:

“There is no link; of course, there is no link.”

What has changed?

[John Thurso]

I am speaking for myself.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

On this point about coalition well-being, does my hon. Friend agree that—and is he sad about the fact that—my Lib Dem colleagues in Cornwall are misrepresenting their vote this evening by saying that a vote against the Bill is a vote against a “Devonwall” seat? He knows, as I do, that the Boundary Commission decides the boundaries and it is not due to bring them back to us until October. So this is hardly good coalition politics, is it?

[John Thurso]

I think I grasped the point being made, but I think we should deal with what is before us today and that we should think again. We should accept what the Lords have said to us.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my noble and hon. Friend for his comments. First, is he aware that there is a Bill at the moment that would reduce the size of the House of Lords without making it into an elected Chamber, which his own party is opposing? Secondly, on the question of whether the Lords are able to put up a decent fight against the Executive, is he aware that during the Labour Governments of Mr Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and the other—[Interruption.] I have forgotten his name, as he appears so rarely in this House. Is my hon. Friend aware that during that time the Lords defeated the Government 450-odd times and the Commons defeated them fewer than 10 times?

[John Thurso]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that, as it is a perfect argument in favour of supporting their lordships on this occasion.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

May I, through my hon. Friend, seek to clarify something? In places such as Cornwall, cross-party agreement has been established on opposing a cross-border constituency. We therefore have an opportunity today to vote in such a way as to defer that until after the next general election and therefore put off the time when such an unacceptable boundary change would affect the people of Cornwall.

[John Thurso]

My hon. Friend is right. I just want to make it clear that when I entered this coalition, I made it clear to the leadership, when my party discussed whether we would accept this arrangement, that for me the agreement in toto was what counted and that Lords reform, as part of the constitutional arrangements, was vital. After the vote on Lords reform, I made it abundantly clear to my leadership that my position had changed and I could not, in all conscience, continue to support what we had done before. That is a fundamental point for myself and my colleagues.

I gently point out to my friends on the Government Benches, in the mildest manner possible, that they have got what they wanted: the great, the good, the wise, the academic, the apolitical, the ex-public servants and the generals, whom they strove so hard to protect, have come together in their wisdom and given us amendment 5. I beg the House to support it.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

Even if we set aside the vital matter of the absence of an obligation on Lords reform, to make the allegation that Conservatives broke a coalition promise requires considerable front. Thirty-six per cent. of the Liberal Democrats rebelled over tuition fees, by comparison with less than 30% of the Conservatives on Lords reform. It is only because the Liberals have fewer MPs than we do—that is, they received a smaller mandate from the people—that their rebellion did not matter.

[John Thurso]

May I put the record straight? The coalition agreement on tuition fees was that all Liberal Democrats had the right to abstain. What happened was that a certain number of colleagues chose to go against the measure. In order, therefore, to give the Government what they needed, the remainder of my colleagues voted in favour of it. That is what really happened.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am trying to give the Liberal Democrats a chance to justify their behaviour. Even if we accept the Liberal code of conduct of an eye for a coalition eye, after their flawed portrayal of the Lords Bill the score is, at best, even.

Committee on Standards (Lay Members)

Viscount Thurso Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That, in accordance with Standing Order No. 149A, Mr Peter Jinman, Mr Walter Rader and Ms Sharon Darcy be appointed lay members of the Committee on Standards.

In December 2012, the House endorsed a recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life that the Committee on Standards and Privileges should include at least two lay members who have never been parliamentarians. The proposal was supported by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, whose then Chair, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), suggested it to the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

The Procedure Committee was asked to consider how that recommendation might be best implemented. It recommended that the Committee on Standards and Privileges should be divided into two, and that the lay members should sit only on the Committee responsible for standards. If the House accepts the nominations today, the two new Committees will come into existence on the first sitting day in January, following on from Kathryn Hudson taking up her appointment as the new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on 1 January.

The lay members will not be co-opted as full voting members of the Select Committee. There was some doubt over whether a committee partly composed of non-members with equal voting rights would in law be a parliamentary Committee and thus entitled to the normal protections of parliamentary privilege. Draft legislation to permit the House to give lay members of the Committee on Standards the power to vote is included in the Government’s Green Paper on Parliamentary Privilege, which has been referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses and is due to report in April next year.

The lay members will participate fully in evidence taking and the consideration of draft reports, although they will not be able formally to move amendments or take part in any votes. There will be two specific protections for their position. The first is that the Committee cannot conduct any business unless at least one lay member is present. The second is the requirement that any written opinion of a lay member present at the relevant meeting on a report agreed by the Committee must be published as part of that report.

The process of recruiting the lay members fell to the House of Commons Commission. The posts were advertised on the parliamentary website through the outreach service, with a search by recruitment consultants and through Twitter. There were 86 applicants for the post, reduced through sifts and interviews to a short list of 12 for interview. The interviews were undertaken in September 2012 by a board that included the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, John Horam, who is now a member of the Electoral Commission, an external assessor and senior officials.

That board put forward six candidates for final interview in October 2012 by three members of the Commission: the Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and me. On the basis of our assessment, the Commission agreed to make the following three nominations to the House this afternoon: Sharon Darcy, who is a member of the national board of Consumer Focus and a board member of the National Employment Savings Trust; Peter Jinman OBE, who is a former president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons; and Walter Rader OBE, who is independent chair of the Youth Council for Northern Ireland appeals panel.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a clear statement. However, will he tell the House what sort of hours those people will be expected to work and what their remuneration will be?

[John Thurso]

My hon. Friend anticipates my next two points. Let me deal with them in order, and if he is not satisfied, he can have another go.

Brief CVs of the candidates are set out in the paper that is available in the Vote Office. The Commission believes that, together, the three candidates represent a combination of experience and qualities that should increase public confidence in the robustness and independence of the House’s disciplinary process. The appointments will initially run until the dissolution of Parliament at the next general election, but they can be extended for up to two years in the new Parliament. Once appointed, a lay member could be dismissed only following a resolution of the House.

The Committee’s work load is variable and it is not yet known what exactly it will be. The lay members will therefore be remunerated on a daily rate for each day worked. That rate is to be £300 per day plus any modest travelling expenses.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the work load. Surely that depends on the behaviour of the House rather than on what the Committee wishes to do?

[John Thurso]

Absolutely. That is the point that I was trying to make, albeit not very succinctly. The work load is variable, consequent on our behaviour. We therefore hope that the lay members will be very modestly rewarded. However, we will have to see.

The Commission has recognised that the role will be challenging and has asked officials to provide a comprehensive induction programme to familiarise the lay members with the culture, roles and key players across Parliament, as well as the procedures and working practices of the Committee on Standards.

I commend the nominees to the House.

House of Commons Administration and Savings Programme

Viscount Thurso Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the medium-term financial plan for the House of Commons Administration as set out in Appendix A to the First Report from the Finance and Services Committee (HC 691); endorses the intention of the Committee to recommend to the House of Commons Commission a House of Commons Administration Estimate 5 for 2013-14 of £220 million; notes the intention of the House of Commons Commission to make savings of 17 per cent in real terms from 2010-11 level by 2014-15 in line with the wider public sector; and endorses the Savings Programme as set out in Appendix B to the report.

May I begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for having allowed this debate to proceed and by thanking you, Mr Speaker, for having encouraged me to go ahead and seek it? It might be helpful to say at the outset that I intend to address: first, the reasons for having this debate; secondly, the principles behind the savings plan and the medium-term financial plan; and, thirdly, some of the detailed issues. I will then say something briefly about the amendments. It might be helpful to tell the House that I hope to make progress in the first part of my speech, but will welcome any interventions in the second.

The debate is something of a first, so let me begin by setting out why we are having it and what I hope it might achieve. Its purpose is to set before the House the advice that the Finance and Services Committee will give the House of Commons Commission on the administration estimate, which is the estimate of funding required to operate the House. I stress that it is neither the Members’ estimate, which concerns all the parts that affect us, such as our staffing and other arrangements, nor the capital estimate, which affects the refurbishment of the House. The administration estimate is for the running of the House itself. The Committee will also advise the Commission on the underlying financial plans, including the activities, strategies and principles that have informed the savings programme. This is an opportunity for Members to debate and, if required, to vote on the proposals.

The Finance and Services Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, has scrutinised with considerable care over some period of time the financial plans and savings proposals. Our findings and recommendations are set out in our report to the House. Our terms of reference charge us with advising the Commission, which is the statutory body required to take the decision, so this is the opportunity for Members to debate the advice that the Finance and Services Committee proposes and to amend that advice if they wish. For the first time, they will be taking a full part in the debate about how House services are provided.

I am pleased to see that there are three amendments and that Members wish to engage in the process. I look forward to the contributions that are to come. I believe that this is an important step in wider scrutiny of how we operate internally and it is therefore important to us and our constituents. I also believe that it is an important debate for our staff and the management of the Palace. I want to reiterate the tribute I paid in a recent Westminster Hall debate: we are served by dedicated and loyal staff who take immense trouble to ensure that we are looked after. They undertake their duties with great efficiency and the minimum of fuss and they are led by a team of officials and managers who set out to satisfy us and who usually succeed. I want to place on record my appreciation of all they do, which is, I am sure, shared by Members on both sides of the House.

At a time of financial constraint, it is wholly right and proper that we are seen to be seeking to operate in the most cost-effective way, consistent with our overarching parliamentary duties of scrutiny, legislating and representing our constituents. To achieve this, we have set a savings target of a 17% reduction in the estimate from the baseline estimate of 2010/11, which was £231 million. By 2014-15, the estimate will need to be £210 million to achieve that target. We are on track to achieve that and the estimate of £220 million, which we are advising the Commission to accept, undertakes that task.

From the outset, it was agreed that simply salami slicing 17% of everything across the board would be inconsistent with achieving the targets for quality of service that we require. Each area of activity has therefore been carefully considered and analysis was made of what was required and then of how to achieve it. In management speak, it is called re-engineering, but I was determined to try not to get that in—I have clearly failed. That is at the heart of the plans to deliver an improved service for our parliamentary duties in a more effective and efficient way. I should stress that our goal is as much quality of service as efficiency and the core principle that has informed all the activities is to ensure that parliamentarians can properly, fully and effectively carry out their duties in this place and can do that at the best value.

Now that I have set out the broad principles behind the plan, let me touch on some of the key areas. I preface that by saying that a considerable amount of saving has already been achieved by simply looking at what we do and how we do it and working out how it can be done better. In addition, the House has adopted the same strictures on pay as the civil service and I draw Members’ attention to the appendices that analyse many of these areas. Today’s proposed estimate of £220 million is, as I have said, a stepping stone on the way to £210 million in 2014-15. The proposals for achieving it are set out in appendix B.

The first key area is what is known as market testing. It is completely appropriate for any organisation to consider what it does and how it might best deliver what are known as the non-core activities. In this place, an obvious example is the Travel Office, where we employ travel professionals on a competitive basis to provide the best service for us. At the other end of the scale are core activities, which are the things that our House service does and that we would never expect to be done by anyone else. They are core to delivering the service. In between, there are areas that are vital to us but not necessarily core activities. Those are the areas where it is proper to see whether an in-house service is providing the best value. The concept behind market testing is to ensure that the services we provide internally are benchmarked against outside provision to show that we have the best value for money.

Detailed analysis of the potential to market test in four areas of the House service, including catering, has been completed. We have reached a point where the in-house teams have developed thorough plans for making improvements and reducing costs internally and have conducted market research to provide comparators. Staff in the areas concerned have been closely involved and have come up with imaginative solutions, supported by people with expertise from outside.

Our colleagues on the Administration Committee have considered the internal improvement plans for catering and have welcomed their approach. The decision now is whether to proceed with the improvements in-house or formally to test the market with the possibility of those services being outsourced. I observe that the Chair of that Committee, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), has tabled an amendment based on a meeting the Committee had earlier this week. I would certainly be minded to accept it and I believe that it is acceptable to other Members of the Finance and Services Committee with whom I have been able to have a word. I look forward to hearing his speech in due course.

The second key area is what is known as print to web. The aim is to move to a more digital-first approach to publishing, with less use of paper and hard copy. The printing of the soft-bound weekly Hansard has already ceased. Some while ago, under the previous estimate, we gave up publishing the weekly compendium of early-day motions. We are considering written questions, which will not be published in the daily Hansard from 2014 but will be published far more quickly and accessibly on line. Clearly, in this project it is important that the quality of the digital access is improved to ensure that the quality of the overall service is better as a result. It is a classic example of the quality of service being the more important goal rather than the saving. As a result of the initial work, nearly £2 million was saved. In the last year, about £1 million was saved and in the coming year, more than £1 million will be saved. If this year’s plan is accepted, we will already have achieved a saving in excess of £5 million.

The perhaps slightly contentious part of all this concerns the leather-bound volumes of Hansard. I have written to all those Members who find this a deeply cherished part of their parliamentary experience. Only 14% of Members currently subscribe to the service and, of those, only a small number feel that it would be a gross inconvenience to lose it. We have negotiated a discount and the bound volumes will be available to Members who wish to purchase them, but for the rest, we will be making a saving of some £970,000 a year by discontinuing them.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

May I reassure my hon. Friend that that is a reasonable saving? I discovered early on in my 39-year parliamentary career that the accumulation of bound volumes of Hansard was not very practical from a domestic point of view.

[John Thurso]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I can tell him that I have had particular praise from the wife of one hon. Friend, who thanked me profusely for having relieved her of the duty of piling those up in the loft. So all in all, it is a wise move but, as I say, for those who wish to continue to receive bound volumes of Hansard, we have made provision for them to be purchased.

The next point that I would like to touch on is the provision of ICT. The aim here is to move to a more cloud-based system. This will allow Members to access all the services they need from virtually any equipment they choose to use. It moves the security aspects—one of the most important points—from their individual pieces of hardware on to the cloud system. So cloud e-mail and office services which are designed to provide flexible access from anywhere and virtually any device should be a truly enabling feature for Members.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

As a Member who is trialling the use of iPads in Select Committee—which, by the way, is proving very effective—I can report that we cannot put information on the cloud at present because the servers for Apple products are in the United States and are therefore covered by the Patriot Act. That presents some interesting problems. Has the Committee given any thought to how we can solve them?

[John Thurso]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The Committee is not yet engaged on the Patriot Act. What we are engaged in is ensuring that these questions are asked of Parliamentary ICT. That is the important point. PICT is currently running what is called the cloud-readiness project to look at all these issues. If we want to arrive at the point where all the benefits that I have sought to outline are available to us, ensuring that the system is secure and that storage and transmission facilities are available are clearly prerequisites for any provider of cloud services. If a provider cannot offer that, it will not get the custom.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

As someone who, when she was a Minister, was responsible for the early stage of planning of the census, where we came across a similar problem with data storage, issues of privacy and the US Patriot Act, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to make sure that he asks the appropriate questions to ensure that when we finally get a cloud, it will be a cloud whose storage is in the UK so that we can avoid the Patriot Act issues?

[John Thurso]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. Had I not thought of those questions before, it is now firmly planted in my mind to ensure that they are all properly asked.

The last point that I wanted to touch on is the plans to increase revenue. The Administration Committee has done considerable work on this, and we had a debate in Westminster Hall which featured that topic. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden will speak in this debate and I am sure that he will cover this in greater detail. It is also the subject of an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). Notwithstanding the fact that I am about to disagree with him, I respect hugely the point that he puts and I am extremely grateful to him for having raised it in the debate. It is one of the core points and it is absolutely right that we as Members should discuss that. He has therefore done us a service by tabling the amendment, and I am grateful that it has been selected. However, I will now proceed to disagree with him, if I may.

The House has operated a number of facilities for staff, visitors and Members, including cafes, restaurants, bars and shops, for a considerable length of time. I hope it will be uncontroversial to affirm that these should be correctly priced and effectively costed. All these are details that the Administration Committee goes into. However, the Palace not only houses Parliament, but is a world-class heritage asset and one of the United Kingdom’s leading visitor attractions. I suggest that as such, we have a duty to make the Palace available to visitors who want to visit it, and an equal duty to ensure that the cost of that does not fall on the taxpayer, but is recovered from those visitors.

The key point is to ensure that there is no conflict between Parliament as a working institution and the Palace as a world-class visitor attraction, so I shall set out my principles in that regard. They are three. First, Parliament is a working institution and while it is sitting, those activities take precedence over any other activity. Secondly, all citizens have the right to visit their Parliament and to engage with their Members of Parliament and the parliamentary process without any charge at any point. Thirdly, subject to those first two principles, the Palace is a world heritage and tourist asset which should be made available for tourist visitors, provided that the costs of such provision are recovered and not passed on to the taxpayer.

I believe—and I think this is where I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow—that provided we have absolutely ensured that parliamentary proceedings are sacrosanct and that citizens can visit the Palace without a charge and without fear of a charge, we have a duty and a right to open it to wider visits and to charge to recover the costs.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In his document he talks about respect for Parliament. This sums up the nub of my argument. The effect of what he proposes is that people who are rich, such as corporates that can pay more money, will have special privileges to get into the Palace of Westminster. That is what I find objectionable. I do not make the distinction between when Parliament is sitting and when it is not sitting.

[John Thurso]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I entirely respect that point of view. I just fundamentally disagree with it, in the nicest possible way. Let us take, for example, the fact that we are putting up the prices for commercial filming in certain parts of the Palace. We have done that for many, many years. All that we are currently doing is making the prices roughly equal to the charges for any other commercial activity. Let us consider another example. My fellow Commissioner, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), is Chairman of Mr Speaker’s Advisory Committee on Works of Art and has done a power of work to open up the art work in this building by offering specialist tours in secure areas to people who would not otherwise be able to get there. Those tours mean that members of staff have to be assigned to that duty. The choice, it seems to me, is that we either recover the cost of those members of staff so that we can widen the access, or we do not do it and do not pay the staff so that we can stay within budget. An ever-increasing openness of the Palace that takes no account of the costs is plain wrong.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Surely this is about striking the right balance: the costs should not fall totally on the taxpayer, but at the same time the charges must not be so high that only the rich can afford them and people are deterred from coming here.

[John Thurso]

I completely agree. There is a need for balance. I cannot give an assurance on the part of the Commission, or indeed any sister Committee, but my view is that we should proceed gently and with caution, just as we did when we introduced charging for entry during the summer recess. We opened up the Palace hugely to tourists and charged a fee that was broadly in line with what people pay to access other tourist attractions. That seems to be the right and proper way to do it. It also creates employment, which I think is good news. My view is that we should do it, but let us move at a reasonable, considered and measured pace without rushing into anything. I would certainly advise whoever introduces it that going with the grain of what has been said is the best way forward.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his formulation of “cost recovery”, is actually the opposite of the “commercialisation” of facilities that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) refers to?

[John Thurso]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend—I call him that because he serves with me on the Finance and Services Committee. I absolutely agree. I read in one of the newspapers that it was proposed that someone from Disney World do something in Westminster Hall. That is not on the agenda and never has been—if it was, I would join my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow in the Lobby like a shot. What we are talking about is the recovery of cost for the proper opening of the Palace to visitors. There will come a moment when it is a matter of judgment in some areas, but I believe that we are capable of making those judgments sensibly when we get there.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I find myself in sympathy with both sides of the argument; I very much see the point my hon. Friend is making, but I also sympathise with the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). Will my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sunderland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) consider some sort of sunset clause that would allow Parliament, after a period of time, to reflect on how well the changes have operated so that, if some of the concerns that have been raised appear to have been justified, we might consider changing once again?

[John Thurso]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I observe in passing that I have managed to attract both sides of the argument—clearly, I am sitting in the right place in the Chamber. I do not think that a sunset clause is necessary, because it is my hope that we will regularly, perhaps annually, have a debate of this kind. If at any time we reach a point where Members clearly feel as our hon. Friend the Member for Harlow feels, that debate would be the time to say that enough is enough. If we reach that point, I am confident that is precisely what the House would do. That is the reassurance I can offer my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles).

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with the following two points? First, we are privileged to work in a palace, rather than some modern, purpose-built place that would be a lot cheaper to run, so we must find some way of defraying the costs of maintaining and repairing it, and it is right that not all of that cost should fall on the taxpayer. Secondly, we are also privileged to enjoy many services, functions and eating places. Unless we can find a way of generating more revenue to support those facilities, we will lose them, because the public will not stand for ever for that being subsidised to the extent it has been in recent years.

[John Thurso]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. On his point about catering “subsidy”, the actual sale prices in most of our outlets are comparable to either, in the case of the dining rooms, private sector outlets or, in the case of the cafes, a normal work canteen. The prime cost is that of food, which in the trade we used to call the kitchen cost, and that is comparable to similar commercial operations, so the gross profit, or kitchen profit, is comparable. The problem is that we occupy the facilities for only part of the week, so for the remainder of the week they cost money because they are serviced and there are staff. Therefore, the gross profit is insufficient to cover the total fixed cost, and on that basis we have a subsidy. I think that it is an appropriate subsidy, particularly if we are looking at this debate. Equally, his point that we should be reasonably expected to reduce that subsidy by the way we operate in order to give the best value is absolutely correct.

[Andrew Miller]

Furthermore, the fixed costs are higher here because of the nature of the building.

[John Thurso]

I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman.

I am conscious that I have occupied the crease for far longer than I had intended and do not wish to upset you any further, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will crack on. My last point regarding the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow is that it essentially asks for more time. I say to him, with the greatest respect, that I have spent two years circulating e-mails, writing reports and seeking to consult Members, some of whom have engaged and some have not—he has been a great engager. We have had a Westminster Hall debate on the matter and today we are debating it in the Chamber on an amendable motion. It does not get any better than that, as far as parliamentary time is concerned, so I suggest that now is the time to make the decision, whatever the House chooses.

Two other amendments have been tabled. I have already referred to that tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden, who chairs the Administration Committee. I believe that other members of my Committee are content to accept it if the House wishes. The other amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and relates to an extremely important point about the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. I know he is hoping to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not go into detail. Suffice it to say, on the basis of the briefing he gave me, I have talked at length with officials and am certain that we will be able to secure the necessary discussions between him, his board and the relevant people to ensure that those points are properly taken on board. I hope that the result will be the correct accommodation.

Members have an historic opportunity to take their destiny in their own hands in considering what services we want and how they should be funded. I am delighted to see so many Members in the Chamber and delighted that there are so many amendments, even though I ask the House to reject at least one of them. Let us have a debate, make a decision and settle the matter. I end by thanking the members of the Finance and Services Committee and the officials who have helped them, both at Management Board level and below, to ensure that the work we have done has been thorough and solid, which has enabled me to lay before the House a report and plans that are well considered, well structured, thoroughly thought through and that, I think, offer a solid way forward. I commend them to the House.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso]

I am extremely grateful to all Members who have spoken. In the short time that is available, I cannot answer all the questions that have been asked, but I undertake to write to every Member.

A very good point about staff contingencies was made by both the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I will respond to them fully at a later stage, but I can tell them now that all staff of the House are paid more than the living wage if they are not in apprenticeship or training.

Before the debate, I was asked by a colleague how I thought it would go. I said, “I have not the slightest idea. It could be a damp squib, or it could be a car crash.” It has certainly not been a damp squib—it has been a very constructive debate, which has allowed serious issues to be considered—and it has most certainly not been a car crash, because those issues have been considered very fully.

I urge the House to accept the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst). I hope that the reassurance that I gave the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) will persuade him not to press his amendment, and I undertake to ensure that the meetings that I promised will take place.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for raising the issue he did and for allowing it to be debated. He has done the House a very important service. He has told me that he wants to press his amendment, and I ask the House to resist it, but I hope that the motion will be passed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Does the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) wish to press his amendment (a)?

Oral Answers to Questions

Viscount Thurso Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

8. What plans he has for the Palace of Westminster to close for refurbishment.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I reassure hon. Members that no decisions have been taken as yet. Such a project would be a major undertaking, and a final decision will not be taken for some time and would probably be a matter for both Houses. This will clearly require careful study and planning.

Most of the current Palace of Westminster dates from the mid-19th century, and much of the external structure and weatherproofing has been untouched since then. Many of the utilities and services inside the Palace date back 60 or 70 years. There is a major backlog of remedial work, including that involving asbestos, which is being professionally assessed and must be remediated in accordance with regulations.

In January this year the Commission appointed a study group to examine all the possibilities, including a temporary relocation of Parliament. The group was assisted by two Members from each House. The report of the study group is not yet finalised, but it is expected to be submitted to the Commission and the House Committee of the House of Lords at the end of next month.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman appeared to say all that without having to breathe. I am extremely impressed.

[Mr Hollobone]

The Palace of Westminster is a place of work for thousands of people, yet the fabric and facilities in many areas of the building date back to the 1840s. Clearly, the cost of bringing the building up to modern standards could be billions of pounds. When is the House of Commons Commission likely to get its first estimate of the total cost of doing up the building?

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. It is difficult at this stage to make a proper assessment of the cost, but we expect the report to contain an assessment of the various costs and, therefore, an indication of the best avenue to pursue. The Commission will ensure that it pursues the best value for money, which will involve a combination of the lowest-cost option and keeping Parliament functioning properly.

[Michael Fabricant]

If Parliament is to be decanted, may I make a shameless bid for it to be decanted to Birmingham? [Interruption.] Why not? It is our second city. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the cost of doing the works over 10 years would be considerably higher than the cost of decanting and doing the work over two or three years?

[John Thurso]

On my hon. Friend’s suggestion about Birmingham, I cannot possibly comment. In regard to the costs, it is my experience from my past life that a decant and a quick contract are often preferable to a series of contracts with no decant, but that is a matter for the study, and we must be led by the evidence that is produced. We will follow that properly.

[Pauline Latham]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those answers. My concern is about decanting and its cost. Does he view the September sittings as a significant barrier to achieving the necessary repairs without completely closing Parliament? A contractor could be let in during the long summer period, and while I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman said, this would be preferable to hon. Members.

[John Thurso]

The hon. Lady makes a good point about the September sittings. I have given evidence on the subject. Again, there is a balance to be struck between the cost of a day’s sitting and the advantage one might gain on a contract, but in this case we are into something of a quite different magnitude. There is already estimated to be £1 billion-worth of backlog, and these are not contracts of 10 or 11 weeks; they are seriously big contracts, so all options to ensure best value for the taxpayer and allow the Commission to make the right choice must be looked at.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

If the House of Commons Commission gets its skates on, we have a fantastic facility in Hackney in east London—the Emmedia centre. While it awaits a tenant, it could happily house Parliament while the work is done. There is a seven-minute shuttle to St Pancras, City airport on the doorstep, excellent transport links and it is 20 minutes to Westminster, so will the House of Commons Commission consider a temporary relocation of Parliament to “Eastminster”?

[John Thurso]

I am delighted to reassure the hon. Lady that at this stage, with the Commission not yet having received the report, all options can be placed on the table. However, the option that is ultimately chosen will follow best practice, best value and the best advice that we receive.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

It would be totally unacceptable for the House not to sit for three months, so I hope we will continue with September sittings. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the patching-up work is going to be very costly and possibly carry on for years, it would be far better to reach a brave decision and do the job properly from the start?

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. As I said, from my experience in another life, I have found that it is usually better to take two or more years and get the job done than to be inconvenienced and unable to work properly for 10 years. I stress, however, that we are at a very early stage; it is for the professional advice to be given first, and then for the Commission to make a decision in the light of that advice.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman’s answer on asbestos is much too complacent. It is incredible that we are being brought back here when every day I go into my office, I meet men in white coats—[Laughter]—wearing protective clothing and gas masks. We have staff wandering around in this building, yet we have reports on the dangers of asbestos here going back to 2005. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should take this matter far more seriously.

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot imagine that the right hon. Lady keeps eccentric company; that is quite beyond my imagination.

[John Thurso]

I can assure the right hon. Lady that I take asbestos extremely seriously, as does the Commission; but more importantly, the Parliamentary Director of Estates does, too. Asbestos is not dangerous if undisturbed. All areas of the Palace have been properly surveyed. Where remedial action is taken, the work force operate within full health and safety dictates and do so as safely as possible. I am constantly reassured by the House authorities in this area. My answer was necessarily short, given that I had to answer three questions and given the orders for brevity issued from the Chair. I assure the right hon. Lady that this matter is taken extremely seriously.