Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 14 October—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 15 October—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, followed by a motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Deep Sea Mining Bill.
Wednesday 16 October—Opposition day (7th allotted day). There will be a debate on zero-hours contracts, followed by a debate on high streets and changes to use orders. Both debates with arise on an Opposition motion.
Thursday 17 October—A debate on a motion relating to defence reforms, followed by a debate on a motion relating to funding support for deaf and young people. The subjects for both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 18 October—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 21 October will include:
Monday 21 October—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 22 October—Second Reading of the Immigration Bill, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to the European public prosecutor’s office.
Wednesday 23 October—Opposition day (8th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 24 October—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 25 October—Private Members’ Bills.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. May I begin by echoing the Prime Minister in congratulating Professor Higgs, this year’s joint winner of the Nobel prize for physics for his work in explaining why the universe has mass? I think his theory may even be able to explain how the badgers managed to move the goalposts.
I note that the Offender Rehabilitation Bill is still strangely absent from future business, despite the fact that it completed its Lords stages well before the summer recess. The Leader of the House will know that on Report in the other place the Government lost a crucial vote and that clause 1 now reads:
“No alteration or reform may be made to the structure of the probation service unless the proposals have been laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.”
We have had no such document, so will he explain why the Government have published contracts to sell off £800 million-worth of probation services and why probation staff have been given notice that they might be offloaded to companies such as G4S or Serco next spring?
It looks to me as though the Government are deliberately ignoring the will of Parliament by delaying the passage of this Bill until after they have privatised the probation service, so rendering their defeat in the Lords irrelevant. Could the Leader of the House prove that my theory is wrong by telling me when we can expect to see the Bill in this House?
The Government succeeded in rushing through their sinister gagging Bill last night without giving us adequate time for scrutiny. It now goes on to the Lords in similar haste so that the Government can get their gag in place in time for the next election. Given that Parliament has not been given the chance to scrutinise the Bill properly and it was not consulted on before it was published, an independent commission has been established to analyse its impact. Will the Leader of the House join me in giving evidence to that commission, and will he give his assurance that the Government will not proceed with the Bill until the findings are published?
We are just back from the conference recess and we learned a lot from the conferences of the two parties in power. The Liberal Democrats believe they have a right to be ensconced in their ministerial cars in perpetuity, whoever wins the election, and the Tories dream of a land of hope and glory. The reality is that, with this incompetent Government, it is more a land of hopeless Tories. I also understand that, following his conference speech, the Business Secretary has changed his voicemail to that old Liberal Democrat staple, “Please leave a message after the high moral tone.”
I am relieved to see both the Leader of the House and his deputy, and, indeed, the Patronage Secretary, in their place after the Government reshuffle at the beginning of the week. Reshuffles on either side are a difficult time for everyone and I want to take a moment to recognise the service of all those leaving their respective Front Benches as a result of Monday’s events. The Leader of the House and I have both been on the right and wrong sides of reshuffles in our time, so we have a personal insight into what people go through. I salute the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who lost his Government job on Monday and was good natured enough to repeat a tweet he received after he had been given the bad news, which said:
“Fisheries Minister sacked. Word is he’s gutted”.
Inexplicably, our friends in the Press Gallery treat reshuffle day as though it were a nerve-wracking episode of “The X Factor”. All that was missing on Monday was some tense music and Dermot O’Leary giving out hugs at the end of Downing street, although I did think that some aspects of the Government’s reshuffle really were worthy of reality TV. First, a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), was sacked for being too right wing. Given that criterion, I am surprised the Deputy Prime Minister managed to spare himself. Then we realised that the Prime Minister’s new strategy to stop his Back-Bench rebellions was to give as many people as possible a job. It seems that a small state needs a very big Government. It then emerged that the Deputy Prime Minister had put a conspiracy theorist in the Home Office behind the back of the furious Home Secretary. I understand that the book written by the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) is shooting up the Amazon charts as a result of all the unwanted publicity. I am sure we all look forward to the new Minister telling us what really happened at Roswell, whether NASA faked the moon landings and whether Elvis ever did actually leave the building.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. I am enjoying our return to business questions after the recess.
I join the shadow Leader of the House and our respective party leaders in congratulating Professor Peter Higgs. It is wonderful that this country has produced so many leading scientists and, indeed, recipients of Nobel prizes. That is something that people in Russia might like to ponder when they call us a small country. I am reminded that there is one college in the small city of Cambridge on this small island that has more Nobel prize winners than the whole of Russia.
I am not yet in a position to enlighten the House on the timetable for our consideration of the Offender Rehabilitation Bill. I will announce that in due course. The Ministry of Justice is rightly proceeding with plans that will improve the quality of probation services and, importantly, offer probation services to those who leave prison after short sentences. That is an important reform and I look forward to the consideration of the Bill in this House.
The shadow Leader of the House tried to return to the debate on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. However, it has now left this House. I met Lesley-Anne Alexander, Stephen Bubb and others to discuss the establishment of the commission. I made it clear that we would take account of anything that they said, but that it was important for them to consider the issues more quickly. They are establishing the commission two and a half months after the Bill was published and in the midst of its passage. I will gladly hear what they have to say, but we will proceed with the Bill in the Lords as planned. As we made clear in yesterday’s debate, we have a timetable for the passage of the Bill. It received full scrutiny on the Floor of this House and I know that their lordships will do a similar thing in their House.
I will not dwell on particular aspects of the reshuffle. As the shadow Leader of the House kindly observed, we have all been subject to these things over the years. My observation is that what goes around comes around. I agree with her that a number of my colleagues have given very good service as Ministers. We very much appreciate that and thank them for it.
We must always be aware that one can contribute to public life not only through ministerial office, but through many other forms of service in this House and in public life more generally. I left the shadow Cabinet and sat as a Back Bencher for a couple of years. That did not mean that I could not make a significant contribution. For example, I helped to write the provision in the Communications Act 2003 that provided that media mergers should be subject to a public interest test in the same way as other mergers, which has been found to be of considerable use. I therefore encourage my colleagues who have left the Government most recently to reflect on the other opportunities for public service.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Angela Eagle Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
On Second Reading, I said that this was one of the worst Bills any Government had brought before the House in a very long time. I called it a
“hurried, badly drafted…agglomeration of the inadequate, the sinister and the partisan.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 186.]
The Government have chosen to ram this disgrace of a Bill through the Commons as fast as they can, and nothing that has happened during this process has changed my verdict. If anything, my initial judgment has been reinforced. The unfortunate disappearance in the Government reshuffle of the former Minister with responsibility for constitutional and political reform, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), halfway through the Bill’s Commons progress was a cruel reward for her willingness to stand up and defend the indefensible. I wish her well, but it is a pity that the Bill did not disappear with her.
The Bill will do absolutely nothing to shine the light of transparency on lobbying, which the Prime Minister himself called the next big scandal waiting to happen. It will let Lynton Crosby, the tobacco lobbyist at the heart of Downing street, continue lobbying undisturbed, and does not even require him to publish his list of clients. It does not regulate big tobacco, but seeks to silence cancer charities that campaign against the malign influence of big tobacco nestling at the heart of this Government. It does absolutely nothing to ensure greater transparency in the Government’s cosy relationship with the big six energy companies, which make record profits while forcing energy prices ever higher for households and businesses, and which reacted so hysterically to Labour’s announcement of an energy price freeze.
The Bill seeks to silence critics of the Government in the run-up to the general election, while letting vested interests operate out of sight. It demonstrates all too clearly that they are a Government who stand up for the wrong people and are willing to abuse the legislative process in their own partisan interests. The one success that the Bill can claim is that it is an object lesson in how not to legislate. In his more candid moments, even the Leader of the House must know that the proceedings to which he has been a party on the Bill have been an affront to Parliament and a stain on any reputation he might have wished to develop as a parliamentary performer.
Let us consider the history of the Bill. The House has been subjected to an abusive and disgraceful process that brings shame on the Government. The Bill was published after three years of inaction on the day before the House rose for the summer recess. Second Reading was scheduled for the day after the House returned for its September sitting, and the Committee stage was then scheduled for the week after, on the Floor of the House, thus ensuring that there could be no pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposals in parts 2 and 3, which the Government drew up in secret. Those proposals had not been consulted on because nobody even knew they existed. Report and Third Reading were then scheduled for the first two days back after the conference recess.
Three Select Committees were caught unawares and had strong objections to the Bill, but the Government’s timetabling, by deliberate design, gave those Committees little time to develop or publicise their views. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee had to meet in the recess in order to be in a position to publish its highly critical report on the Bill. The Standards Committee had significant worries about the Bill, some of which the Government have been forced to address. The Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights has written to the Leader of the House complaining that the Bill could have a chilling effect and risks damaging the quality of debate in the run-up to the general election. That is a serious charge in any democracy, but the Government have simply chosen to ignore it. Their decision to ram the Bill through the House has ensured that the Select Committee will not even be able to publish its report until after the Bill has completed all its Commons stages.
The Government did not consult the many thousands of campaigners, trade unionists and charities directly affected by the sinister gagging proposals in part 2 prior to the publication of the Bill. Even more astonishingly, the Electoral Commission, the Government’s own regulator, was not consulted either and continues to regard many of the proposals in the Bill as undesirable and other proposals such as the constituency cap as unworkable, yet it is expected to police these partisan changes in electoral law. No one in the Government has plausibly been able to identify the problems that parts 2 and 3 of the Bill are meant to address or, much less, to solve.
It becomes clearer by the day that this is a disgraceful attempt by the Government to gag their critics in civil society in the run-up to the general election. It is a gagging Bill masquerading in true Orwellian style as a transparency Bill. The well-established tradition that changes to the law governing elections should be agreed on a cross-party basis has been abandoned by this Government in a partisan abuse of the legislative process that is aimed at hobbling their growing body of critics in civil society. This is an abuse that will not be forgotten.
The Government promised to sort out lobbying, but the Bill defines it in such excruciatingly narrow terms that it renders all claims by the Government to achieve transparency completely laughable. Indeed, it could even worsen the current situation by undermining the existing registers. It excludes in-house lobbyists completely and instead applies only to consultant lobbyists. It has been estimated by the industry itself that it will catch only 20% of lobbyists and a minuscule 1% of lobbying episodes. The Bill is so inadequate that it has achieved the previously unheard-of feat of uniting the transparency campaigners and the lobbying industry in opposition to it. It is so narrow that it would not apply to a lobbyist lobbying a Member of this House about the lobbying Bill. During the unacceptably rapid passage of the Bill through the Commons, we have argued that there should be comprehensive coverage of the entire industry, a code of conduct and sanctions for misbehaviour. We continue to believe that such a system must be legislated for in the future, and if this Government refuse to do that, we will do it.
Part 2 of the Bill has caused the most outrage and worry in civil society, and quite right too. Part 2 will place a sinister gag on the Government’s critics as the election approaches. It will create regulatory uncertainty, and it will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on civil society and on local campaigning in the year before a general election. Indeed, it has been deliberately designed to do so.
Instead of dealing with the funding arms-race between political parties during election periods, the Bill slashes the amounts that can be spent by third-party campaigners, leaving the political parties untouched, despite the fact that third parties spent only one tenth of what political parties spent at the last general election. The Bill significantly lowers the spending thresholds for third parties during the general election period, which will ensure that many thousands of small charities, bloggers and campaigners will be caught by the strict regulation required by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Indeed, the Bill will make that regulation far more onerous for all third parties and create a massive new administrative burden for them, further increasing the incentive for them simply to keep quiet.
The Bill introduces a new constituency spending limit, which the Electoral Commission has described as unworkable. After their initial bluster, the Government have at least acknowledged the furore that part 2 has caused by tabling their rather modest amendments to clause 26 and schedule 3, which we have debated today. But as we have seen, those amendments barely scratch the surface of what would be needed to make the Bill workable. A lucent gag is still a gag.
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has said:
“The assurances given by ministers on the floor of the house to ensure that charities will still be able to support specific policies that might also be advocated by political parties have not been met.”
The Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations has said that
“these amendments don’t prevent the Bill curbing freedom of speech around elections.”
Just yesterday, an impressive coalition of Church groups including the Quakers, the Church of Scotland, the Methodist Conference, the Assembly of Reform Rabbis, the Evangelical Alliance, Islamic Relief, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development stated:
“Following legal advice and a statement from the Electoral Commission, we remain concerned that…we still do not have the necessary legal certainty that Part II of this Bill could not be applied to a wide range of legitimate campaigns, despite such activities being intended to be party politically neutral.”
In other words, the gag is still very much in place. It must be removed or else we will see the triumph of the new breed of Tory authoritarians who, like the Justice Secretary, believe:
“Britain cannot allow a culture of left-wing-dominated single-issue activism to hold back our country”.
Presumably, he refers to the TaxPayers Alliance, the many right-wing blogs, the Adam Smith Institute and ConservativeHome, which have all opposed the restrictions in part 2.
Part 3 seeks to punish all trade unions by burying them in pointless and expensive administrative requirements for their membership lists because some of them have had the temerity to be affiliated to the Labour party. It should be seen for the grubby little piece of partisan legislative abuse that it is.
Tonight, then, the Government will succeed in using their majority to ram this illiberal Bill—virtually unamended—through the Commons. It will now be for the House of Lords to give it the scrutiny that Government timetabling has made it impossible for us to deliver in this place—and it is vital that the other place now does so. This is a very bad Bill. It is badly drafted and in places unworkable; it lets vested interests proceed unchecked in the shadows, while it gags charities and civil society. It is a sinister Bill that seeks to silence the Government’s critics in the run-up to a general election. It will have a chilling effect on the quality of our national debate, which is why we will vote against it the Lobby tonight. I urge all Members to join us there.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Leader of the House would give us the business for when we return after the conference recess.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The business for the week commencing 7 October will be as follows:
Monday 7 October—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 8 October—Remaining stages of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Day 1).
Wednesday 9 October—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill.
Thursday 10 October—Debate on a motion relating to free school meals, followed by a general debate on funding for local authorities. The subjects for both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
The business for the week commencing 14 October will include:
Monday 14 October—Remaining stages of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 15 October—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.
Wednesday 16 October—Opposition Day [7th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 17 October—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 18 October—Private Members’ Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 10 and 17 October will be:
Thursday 10 October—Debate on the third report of the Environmental Audit Committee on wildlife crime, followed by debate on the first report of the Work and Pensions Committee on “Can the Work programme work for all user groups?”.
Thursday 17 October—Debate on the sixth report of the Transport Committee on the Coastguard, Emergency Towing Vessels and the Maritime Incident Response Group, followed by debate on the eighth report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on the contamination of beef products.
Ms Eagle
We are always grateful to the Doorkeepers for looking after us. May I take the opportunity to wish Bill Perkiss, who has served as a Doorkeeper for 26 years, a long and very happy and retirement? It is well deserved.
The House has spent this week dismantling the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. Members in all parts of the House have lined up to condemn the Bill as a sop to vested interests and a sinister gag on free speech. On Tuesday, the Government caved in to pressure and agreed to an unspecified concession on clause 26. May I ask the Leader of the House whether that will include amendments to schedule 3? Does he not realise that the rest of part 2 is riddled with problems as well?
Given that the Leader of the House has just announced that the Bill will return for its Report stage on the first day following the recess, will he tell us how on earth we are expected to judge any amendments that the Government may table? When does he intend to publish any new amendments, and whom will he consult? Does he not agree that, in order to give the House time to consider the changes to clause 26 and to allow the views of charities, campaigners and his own regulator on the problems with the rest of part 2 to be heard, he should delay Report stage?
Some of the more generous critics of this mess of a Bill on the Government’s own Benches have suggested that the sinister gag on charities and campaigners might just be an innocent drafting mistake. I usually appreciate optimism, but I think that is taking it a bit too far. The reality is that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) was spot on when he said that part 2 would “chill free speech”, and was right to vote against it along with nine of his Conservative colleagues. What a pity that the Deputy Prime Minister, who I am told cooked up the Bill at a “high-level meeting” with the Prime Minister, was mysteriously absent from the vote. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether that was because the Deputy Prime Minister could not be bothered to turn up and vote, or because he was ashamed of his own authoritarian Bill?
We must be clear. The Bill is a crude and cynical attempt by the Government to shut up their many critics in the run-up to the next general election. However, they have been found out. Is it not time that they listened to the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), and went back to the drawing board?
This week, the Liberal Democrats have been left to do the Tories’ dirty work on the gagging Bill. In fact, they have become the Bill’s most fulsome defenders. Such has been their enthusiasm for this gag on free speech that I am prompted to suggest that they invest in a dictionary, so that they can look up the meaning of the words “liberal” and “democrat”.
I never cease to be amazed by the sheer effrontery of the Liberal Democrats. This week the Minister for Schools, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), unveiled an election promise to repeal secret courts legislation. He hoped no one would remember that it had only got on to the statute book, a few months earlier, with Liberal Democrat support. Who do they think they are kidding? In that dictionary, they might also want to look under C for consistency, and then move down the page and check out the meaning of “cynical”. It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) used an interview with one of the weekend papers to announce that she was in despair over her own party.
This week, the Education Secretary underlined just how callous the Government are when he asserted that those who turn to food banks have only themselves to blame. The Transport Secretary promptly agreed with him, and the Prime Minister refused to disassociate himself from the remarks during Prime Minister’s Question Time. How out of touch can this Government be? It is a scandal that since they came to power, one third of a million more people have had to use food banks, and all this Government can do is berate them for it.
The Chancellor used the phrase “living standards” 12 times in a speech that he gave earlier in the week. He can say it all he likes, but it will not make up for the fact that it is his squeeze on living standards that means that people cannot feed themselves and their families by the end of the month. Prices have risen faster than wages in all but one of the 39 months that this Government have been in power, and all they have done is give tax cuts to millionaires and defend the privileged few. So will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on how we can build a recovery for all in an economy that works for working people?
As we all leave and head off to our party conferences, I would like to congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on his unprecedented outburst of realism on his radio phone-in show this morning. He announced that it was
“unlikely that at the next general election we are going to get an outright majority”.
I think he just might be right about that one.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House and join her in wishing Bill Perkiss a very happy retirement. We very much appreciate the way in which the Doorkeepers look after the Members of this House and wish him well.
The hon. Lady asked only two questions. One was in relation to the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. We have no intention of delaying Report stage. It was perfectly evident in the course of this week that the Opposition’s approach to the Bill was to talk on early groups of amendments at inordinate and absurd length in order to try to prevent scrutiny of later groups. [Interruption.] Well, we will make sure that the Bill is scrutinised properly.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House made it very clear on Tuesday that we will table an amendment on Report. We will publish it on or before 1 October and its effect is confined to clause 26 in principle, which is to ensure that for those who are undertaking expenditure for electoral purposes the substance of the test will be the same as in 2010. We have made it clear that it has never been our intention to change the substance of the test of what constitutes expenditure for electoral purposes.
We are very clear, however, that in relation to schedule 3 and other parts of the Bill we will change the activities that will be controlled as part of controlled expenditure. We will bring down the limit, and rightly so. We will disaggregate that constituency limit, so as to make the regulation of non-party campaigning expenditure more comparable to the regulation of party expenditure and to make it apply at the constituency level as well. If I can publish the amendment earlier and consult with others, I will certainly set out to do so.
While I am on the Bill and Report stage in our first week back, as I announced, I continue to await a reply from the Leader of the Opposition to a letter that I sent two months ago asking him whether he wished to use the Bill as a vehicle for giving effect to his proposals to give members of trade unions a deliberate choice about their participation in political funds. Not only have I had no reply, but it is perfectly evident from watching the Leader of the Opposition’s rather lamentable performance in Bournemouth that the trade unions are not going to let him implement the changes to the political fund and its operation that he announced earlier in the summer. They will not let him do it. He and the Labour party have one route to make sure those changes happen and to entrench them: it is to use the Bill on Report, and it is not too late for them to table amendments on Report that would have that effect. I call on them to do so.
The shadow Leader of the House made some remarks about the recovery. Let me make it clear that it is this Government who inherited the most appalling deficit—the biggest annual deficit of any developed country. Let us remember that that recession was a reduction in gross domestic product of 7.2%. The idea that we could recover from such a deep recession and resolve such appalling debt problems—not only Government debt, but consumer debt—without implications for people’s living standards over the short term is nonsense. We are minimising those implications and, as a Government committed to fairness, ensuring that in the process those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden, not least through our changes to the personal tax allowance, which mean that people in work and on low earnings have seen their tax burden reduced, with 2.7 million people taken out of income tax altogether. The Labour party never includes that in the figures it uses.
The most important thing is for people to have security through employment. We now have the lowest number of workless households we have seen and 1.4 million more private sector jobs. That is the basis upon which people will feel the benefits of this recovery in the years ahead.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Angela Eagle Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Swinson
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that although he has been searching so hard for the impact assessment, he clearly has not looked on gov.uk, which one might have expected would be an obvious place to look.
Jo Swinson
I happily accept that it should be in the Vote Office. We are looking into that now.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 9 September—My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will propose an humble address and message on the occasion of the birth of His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge. I expect my right hon. Friend to update the House following the G20, followed by consideration in Committee of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 10 September—Consideration in Committee of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (day 2).
Wednesday 11 September—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
Thursday 12 September—General debate on child protection in the UK, followed by general debate on employment rights.
The subjects for both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 13 September—Private Members’ Bills.
The business for the week commencing 7 October will include:
Monday 7 October—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 8 October—Remaining stages of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (day 1).
Colleagues will wish to be reminded that the House will meet at 2.30 pm on this day.
Wednesday 9 October—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill.
Thursday 10 October—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business.
A report from the Resolution Foundation yesterday showed that one in five workers is paid less than the living wage, a rise of nearly 1.5 million in three years. We now know that the Government’s economic policies have meant that people are £28 a week worse off than they were in 2010, and for all but one month since the election prices have risen faster than wages. It is not a recovery if it leaves everyone but those at the top behind, and the public are not buying it either. Polling shows that 70% of people believe that recent improvements in the economy have not benefited middle and lower income families, and 81% believe that politicians who say that household incomes have grown faster than price rises are “out of touch”. I could not have put it better myself. This is an out-of-touch Government, complacent on living standards, building an economy that works only for their rich millionaire friends. So may we have an update from the Chancellor about this week’s understanding of his favourite phrase, “We are all in this together”?
The lobbying Bill that we have been discussing this week shows us that instead of getting the big money out of politics, the Government would rather put a gag on campaigners while protecting Lynton Crosby. But that is not surprising when with this Government money seems to buy influence. Hedge funds gave the Conservatives £32 million and then got a massive tax cut, and then there was the tax cut for millionaires. In spite of all this, I was still surprised to see Boris Johnson say this week that he would change his name to “Barclays” in return for £100 million in sponsorship. How long will it be before we see the Cabinet touting for sponsorship too?
We have been back only a few days and it is already back to normal for this Government. We have had a rebellion, chaos in the Whips Office and abject incompetence, and we have had our first U-turn this morning with the dropped plans on legal aid price competition. Where there is chaos there is waste. We have already had the pointless top-down reorganisation of the NHS at a cost of £1.5 billion. This week we have discovered that they have squandered £74 million forgetting to add VAT on the troubled aircraft carrier programme. Today, the sheer scale of the failure at the heart of the Secretary of State for Work and Pension’s flagship universal credit programme became clear. The National Audit Office report says that the scheme has been beset by
“weak management, ineffective control and poor governance”.
We have also learned that £34 million has been wasted on IT and they have spent £300 million on a computer that they do not know what to do with. The NAO blames a fortress mentality where only good news is released. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on this fortress mentality and the impact it may be having on the ability of the civil service to operate effectively in the culture that this Government have created?
Next week, we have the Committee stage of the comically named Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, which had its Second Reading on Tuesday. The Opposition are committed to cleaning up lobbying, getting big money out of politics and keeping dodgy donors out of Downing street, but the Bill achieves none of this. The Leader of the House got a very rough ride, including from three Select Committees and his own Back Benchers, for this rushed, incompetently drafted and sinister mess of a Bill. He has already tabled 23 amendments and there will be a lot more, I am sure, before we have finished. This Bill has united the lobbying industry and transparency campaigners, who agree that it will make lobbying less transparent, not more. The Electoral Commission, hundreds of charities, campaigners and many thousands of members of the public are fighting the Government’s sinister gag on free speech in the run-up to a general election.
It seems that the Bill’s only success has been to create a huge coalition against it, so wide that it includes the TaxPayers Alliance, the Royal British Legion, HOPE not hate and 38 Degrees. Yesterday the Prime Minister accused the trade unions of mounting a concerted lobbying campaign against the Bill, but he omitted to mention that Con. Home is against it, too.
The Leader of the House does not seem to have learnt many lessons from his last disastrous attempt at a Bill, the Health and Social Care Act 2012, but I would like to ask him to learn just one: he needs to pause, listen, reflect and improve. Why not start by listening to the important report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, published today? He should scrap the timetable he has just announced for Committee stage and arrange some much-needed pre-legislative scrutiny. Even better, why does he not just go back to the drawing board?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her further questions. On the transparency Bill, she is just trying to rerun the debate we had on Tuesday. All the points she has made were presented in that debate and she lost. The Bill secured a Second Reading and, in particular, the support of the House against the Opposition’s reasoned amendment, which specifically sought a delay.
As I made clear on Second Reading, we will look at some of the concerns that have been raised, but I re-emphasise this point: many of the representations that are being made are based on a complete misunderstanding and a misrepresentation, which is that some change is taking place in the definition of what constitutes expenditure for electoral purposes, as distinct from campaigning on policies and issues. Charities will continue to be able to campaign as vigorously as they wish in putting forward their policies, and if any organisations were to step over the line and try to secure the election of a party or a candidate, that should be treated as election expenditure. That was the case in the past and will be the case in future. If there is any way we can make that even clearer, we will set out to do so.
I am surprised that the hon. Lady did not take the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition to the letter I sent him before the recess making it clear that the Bill was available for the Labour party to put forward proposals to give trade union members a deliberate choice on their participation in political funds, which he said they should have. Only yesterday we saw Paul Kenny of the GMB clearly trying to push him off his proposals. If he wants to entrench them, he should come forward next week—he still has time to do so—and table amendments to the Bill so that that can be legislated for and he can show his determination. If he does not do so, we will know that he is not serious about doing it at all.
The hon. Lady asked about the urgent question earlier today, trying to rerun points that I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with very well. Let me say one thing, and I say it from personal experience: he is doing absolutely the right thing to ensure that we deliver the programme on universal credit. It is vital that we do so in order to make work pay and to get the incentives in the welfare system right, which the Labour party failed to do. Stepping into a programme to make changes in order to deliver it on time and on budget is the right thing to do, unlike what Labour did with the NHS IT programme, which was to go into denial about all the problems. When my colleagues and I came into office after the general election we found a broken programme that we had to scrap, but in the process we saved over £2 billion, which enabled my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health last week to announce a major programme for supporting hospitals and the NHS to improve their technology themselves. That is what we should be doing; we should have workable programmes, not top-down, broken ones. [Interruption.] Talking about the National Audit Office, it has said that delivering the NHS reorganisation programme on time is a major achievement and that it is delivering the planned savings: £5.5 billion from the reform programme itself over the course of this Parliament and £1.5 billion every year thereafter.
The hon. Lady asked one thing about business, regarding an update from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am happy to remind her that he will be at the Dispatch Box on Tuesday to answer questions. I am looking forward to him being able further to remind the House, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, of the events of the summer in relation to the economy, which the hon. Lady did not mention and her leader did not mention at Prime Minister’s Questions. The reason they did not is that the Chancellor will be able to refer to figures showing that employment is up, exports are up, confidence is up, manufacturing is up, services are up, construction is up, housing starts are up, and growth is up. The hon. Lady knows that, as a consequence, the Labour party is going down.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Angela Eagle Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
If Members will forgive me, I am at risk of dealing with part 2 before I have dealt with part 1. I am going to talk simply about part 1—[Interruption.] I give way to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle).
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Many people would want him to reassure third parties and charities, but he seems to me to be complacent about the issue. The Electoral Commission briefing for today’s debate states that,
“the Bill creates significant regulatory uncertainty for large and small organisations that campaign on, or even discuss, public policy issues in the year before the…general election, and imposes significant new burdens on such organisations”.
Surely, the right hon. Gentleman’s complacent attitude is completely at odds with what the Electoral Commission—his own regulator—has written to all of us.
Mr Lansley
I had conversations yesterday with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which helpfully supplied us with a copy of its legal advice, which of course illustrates that, technically, the uncertainties that are being talked about could in large part be construed to relate to existing legislation rather than the Bill that we are bringing forward. In truth, it is the responsibility of the Charity Commission, where charities are concerned, and the Electoral Commission for all third parties, to work together to ensure the soundness of the definitions in the Bill. Frankly, they are substantively the same definitions for electoral purposes—[Interruption.] The definitions on controlled expenditure and on the appropriate limits are changed, but the definition that relates to spending being for electoral purposes if it is intended or has the effect of procuring or promoting support for candidates of political parties is not changed. The Electoral Commission knows that part of its job is to make sure that that boundary is policed, and the guidance on that is very clear.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House affirms its belief in the need for greater transparency in the lobbying industry and in British politics, and considers that there should be a universal register of all professional lobbyists backed by a code of conduct and sanctions, clear rules on third party campaigning, and real reform to get the big money out of politics; but declines to give a Second Reading to the Transparency of Lobbying, Third Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill because the proposals on lobbying cover only a tiny minority of the industry and will make lobbying less transparent, and the proposals on third party campaigning amount to a gag on charities and campaigners who have a democratic right to participate in important debates in the run up to elections; and strongly believes that the publication of such a Bill should have been preceded by a full process of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation with affected parties.
This is one of the worst Bills that I have seen any Government produce in a very long time. The last Bill this bad might even have been the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and the Leader of the House of Commons had his fingerprints all over that one, too. To be fair to him, he has found himself in a very difficult place. He has been landed with this risible and misconceived Bill and told to ram it through the Commons with unseemly haste in time for the next election.
I am told that it is not a Bill with many champions in government, where a history of previous employment in the lobbying industry is common. Nothing wrong with that, we might say, but it has created a notable reluctance on the part of all sorts of Ministers to touch the Bill with a bargepole, and this afternoon we all understand why. They have looked at the ceiling; they have looked at the floor; they have muttered among themselves in the hope that they would not be chosen to pilot the Bill through the House. The Leader of the House has drawn the short straw, along with the ever-willing Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith).
This is Bill is hurried, badly drafted and an agglomeration of the inadequate, the sinister and the partisan. From a Government who solemnly promised that they would fix our broken politics, the Bill will do the complete opposite.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Following the Government’s historic humiliation last Thursday, would it be beneficial to the House, the Government and the country if they spent the three weeks of recess studying the virtue of humility?
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I notice that the Leader of the House kept avoiding certain people who wanted to intervene. More importantly, does my hon. Friend agree that we and many other people thought that the Bill would deal with the lobbying industry? We now find out that the voluntary sector and the trade unions are getting a hammering, but there is nothing about terms and conditions for shareholders and companies donating to political parties. Do she not think that we need some legislation there?
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Many of us are firmly against the Bill, and civil society seems united in that view. Does my hon. Friend not accept that one of the most disgraceful things is that the Government are not allowing witnesses from civil society? If the Government are so convinced of their case, why will they not allow witnesses in the Bill’s proceedings?
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Surely, the point of the Bill is to say that we have together in Parliament tried to reduce the cost of politics. This is about recognising and putting on the record third parties that want to spend money on promoting parties or candidates. It is right that that should be controlled in exactly the same way as it is for political parties.
Ms Eagle
I will give way in due course when I have finished answering the point made by the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). Third-party campaigners spent 10% of what political parties spent. If we wanted to reform politics and get rid of the big money from politics, we should look at the cost of fighting election campaigns for political parties, too.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The National Housing Federation, the Chartered Institute of Housing, Shelter and Crisis have all said that those who speak out in future on either the housing crisis or the bedroom tax would be “extraordinarily at risk”. They want the ability to put all parties on the spot in the run-up to a general election. Why should they be constrained in doing so? Is this not an attempt by the Government to gag their critics?
Ms Eagle
The Government will have to do a lot more work to persuade the official Opposition and most of civil society that they have got the balance right.
From a Government who solemnly promised that they would fix our broken politics, this Bill does the complete opposite. It is a sop to powerful vested interests, a sinister gag on democratic debate in the run-up to the general election and a shameful abuse of the legislative process to make cheap partisan points. This is a very bad Bill. It will let Lynton Crosby continue to advise the Prime Minister on tobacco policy. It will let big tobacco continue to target the Government, without requiring those interests to register at all, but it could stop an organisation like Cancer Research UK campaigning against them.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The hon. Lady has used the phrase “excessive haste” twice in her speech so far, and with respect to part 2, I rather agree with her. Historically, constitutional and democratic measures have not been guillotined in the House. Does the Opposition intend to vote against the guillotine tonight?
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that the figure of 10% in relation to the expenditure committed by third-party organisations during elections would be greatly increased if staff costs were included, as the Bill seeks to do?
Ms Eagle
Yes, the hon. Lady is exactly right. I will come on to talk in detail about the worries about part 2 that are being widely expressed outside the House, and the Government would be wise to listen and consider some major amendments to the suggestions that they have put before us today—or, better, to delay the Bill, so that we can have proper pre-legislative scrutiny. This is not a transparency of lobbying Bill; it should be renamed the “Let Lynton Lobby” Bill. The Bill will make things worse, not better. It is a wasted opportunity for political reform, and the Government must go back to the drawing board.
Before I look in detail at each part of the Bill, I shall comment on the way the Bill has been handled by the Government to date, because it is a perfect lesson in how not to legislate. Drafting it has been a process that goes against every principle that the right hon. Gentleman claims to have championed in his role as Leader of the House. The Bill was published out of the blue just two days before we rose for the summer recess and the August holiday season. If last week’s unexpected recall had not taken place, we would have found ourselves taking the Second Reading of the Bill on our second day back. We have only three sitting days until we begin the Committee stage on the Floor of the House on Monday next week.
After three years of silence and prevarication on lobbying, it is important to ask why the Government are in such a sudden headlong rush. There is only one conclusion: they are trying to ram through their gag on charities and campaigners in clause 2 so that they are silenced in time for the next general election, and they are trying to avoid the scrutiny that will show the public what a disgrace the Bill is.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Lady will know that the public have great concerns about parliamentary patronage and how party placemen can end up in the House of Lords. Is she therefore disappointed that there are no provisions in the Bill that would cover scandals such as cash for honours?
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The Leader of the House would not give way when he was speaking about part 2. There are some key issues for coalitions of charities. The shadow Leader of the House mentioned health issues such as smoking. There are big differences between the parties on some of these issues and there could be a chilling effect on a coalition of, say, health and social care organisations that was campaigning for the particular stance that one particular party might be advocating. Charities are worried today. We have talked to them this morning. The Leader of the House may shake his head, but they are worried. He has got it wrong.
Ms Eagle
My hon. Friend is right. Lawyers who have looked at the changes that the Government are proposing to make in part 2 agree with the worries of the charitable sector. A mere assertion from those on the Government Benches that the measure does not mean what everybody else thinks it means will not be enough to reassure people on these matters.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Although I have some nugatory sympathy for the concerns that have been raised around the House, does not the hon. Lady appreciate the irony that the Labour party, which introduced the current controls around controlled expenditure, appears to be getting hot under the collar at the prospect of large organisations which, although they may not be political parties, spend a large amount of money in specific constituencies for specific candidates being called into question? It looks as though she is concerned to keep controlled expenditure on the statute book, but uncontrolled expenditure in the constituencies.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a strong case. She might not be aware that I was very involved in 2005, the general election year, in the Make Poverty History campaign, which lobbied and influenced Members and candidates across all parties in the House—very successfully, as many of us would agree. Does she share my fear that in the future such campaigns in an election year would not be able to go ahead or would be severely curtailed?
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
On part 2, my hon. Friend has got on to the question of spending money prior to an election. Is there not a connection between the National Union of Students campaigning on student fees after 2010, and the Lib Dems? Some people asked me, “Are the Lib Dems supporting this rubbish—this gagging Bill?” and I said yes. That is because of their fear of 2010, which they do not want repeated in the run-up to the next general election. What a political scandal!
Ms Eagle
As always, my hon. Friend puts his finger on an extremely relevant point.
The Leader of the House made much of his personal commitment to the pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills, and I will be the first to praise him for that. However, his commitment is ringing pretty hollow now. The Government promised that there would be pre-legislative scrutiny on the lobbying proposals in part 1. In May 2012, when he was the Minister responsible, the present Minister for Immigration, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), told this House:
“We are going to . . . publish our proposals and put them up for pre-legislative scrutiny”.—[Official Report, 22 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 972.]
There has been none, and the Government have deliberately chosen to preclude it by taking the Bill so quickly and on the Floor of the House.
Let us remind ourselves of what the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who is now the responsible Minister, told the House in April this year—
Ms Eagle
I will give way in due course to the hon. Gentleman, but I am in full flow making a particular point. If he will let me finish it, I will come back to him.
The current Minister in the Cabinet Office stated earlier this year:
“Cabinet Office Ministers have had no meetings with interested parties on the Government's plans for a proposed statutory register of lobbyists since September 2012.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 1057W.]
The hon. Lady appears to be completely unperturbed by her lack of consultation and engagement on these important matters.
The Leader of the House has regularly praised the work of Select Committees since the Wright reforms were implemented, and claimed the credit for their increasing power and influence. Why, then, has he chosen to ignore the impressive piece of work on lobbying done by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which his Government have had in their in-tray for nearly a year? We had an apology from the right hon. Gentleman today, but does he really think that a two-paragraph response from the Government after this Bill was published is the way his Government should treat a serious piece of work by a well-respected Select Committee? He can hardly be surprised that the Committee believes that the Government have shown
“a lack of respect for Parliament and for the many people who contributed to our inquiry.”
The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is so concerned about the Bill that it has been forced to hold emergency hearings during the recess. The right hon. Gentleman gave evidence to the Committee this morning. The Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), spoke for many in this House, I know, when he said last week that the proposals on lobbying in the Bill amount to a “dog’s breakfast”. The hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), who I see in his place, immediately objected to the use of the term “dog’s breakfast” because in his words,
“Far more thought has gone into pet nutrition than into this Bill.”
As a Member whose constituency once contained a Spillers dog biscuit factory, I can tell the hon. Gentleman from my personal experience of pet nutrition that he is absolutely right.
Ms Eagle
Let me get on. I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
The Standards and Privileges Committee is also worried, as the Chair of that august body told us today, about the implications for privilege and for the remit given to the Standards Commissioner, especially by the contents in schedule 1 and clauses 1 to 3, about which the Committee was not consulted. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised that with the Leader of the House. I look forward to the contributions of members of both of those distinguished Committees to our debate today, as I look forward to seeing any reports on these matters. I know that Members are working hard to produce them before we get to the Committee stage next week. We will all benefit from their expertise and opinions.
I give way to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). He has moved on. I give way to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton).
Sarah Newton
The hon. Lady is making a powerful criticism of the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. Will she share with us equal condemnation of the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny of the 2009 Bill for which she claimed responsibility? There was no pre-legislative scrutiny of the Political Parties and Election Act 2009.
Mr Allen
We can all swap stories about who did or did not do pre-legislative scrutiny, but let us have a principled view that it is wrong not pre-legislatively to scrutinise a Bill. The way to do that is to put it in our Standing Orders that normally—apart from emergencies, when the Speaker writes a warrant stating that, because we need to get something through fairly quickly, part of the process can be dispensed with—it will be standard practice to have pre-legislative scrutiny. Had we done so on this occasion, we would probably be in danger of arriving at a consensus on the Bill.
Chris Bryant
Is not the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny that all too often it means we can iron out some of the unintended consequences? A classic one that I think we are likely to come across, in relation to part 1, is that when the Government or Parliament face a big issue many small charities decide to form a joint committee and employ someone specifically to act on their behalf and represent them. They would be caught by this Bill, whereas the bodies that they would probably be fighting against, the big commercial interests, would not. That is the unfairness.
Ms Eagle
My hon. Friend is of course right. Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill came as a complete surprise to all those in civil society who will be affected, be they charities, campaigners or trade unions. The Government designed the changes in secret and sprung them on everyone in a baleful attempt to bounce them quickly on to the statute book. They have not even bothered to consult those affected. Discussions I have had during meetings with stakeholders on all three parts of the Bill suggest that time after time e-mails, letters and calls requesting conversations with Ministers were left unanswered. The Government did not even tell the Electoral Commission until the end of June that they were going to alter the rules that it is required by law to police, so they have kept their own regulator in the dark. The Electoral Commission has said:
“We share the concerns that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee expressed… about the timing of the Bill and the absence of pre-legislative scrutiny.”
I cannot believe that the Leader of the House is content with this shameful and shambolic process. He has provided an abject lesson in how not to develop and propose legislation. This is a Bill that he should be embarrassed to be associated with.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is giving an eloquent answer to the question of unintended consequences. Does she not also agree that in an era when we all need to look at how to increase political engagement and engagement in our democracy, particularly at election time, when people might want to challenge politicians, the Bill might do the very opposite by ending up with elections in which it is political parties that are talking to each other?
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Could not some of the ambiguity and concern about part 2 of the Bill have been avoided by having proper pre-legislative scrutiny? For example, at what point would people campaigning against poor housing conditions cross the line between simply expressing their charity’s point of view and become involved in political activity? The Leader of the House was not clear today on where that line is.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend has made the fantastic point that a lack of pre-legislative scrutiny leads to unintended consequences. In my constituency, at the last election and since, a group called “HOPE not hate” has been doing fantastic campaigning work to ensure peace among the many races in Luton, including providing information about the backgrounds of the candidates standing for the far right in elections. How can it be right that they are restricted to just 2% of what, say, the British National party could spend in an election period?
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
On the question of unintended consequences, has my hon. Friend had a chance to consider the complexities that the Bill would create for the Conservative party? The fact is that full-time employees are involved in creating donors’ clubs, and money from them goes from one constituency to another, meaning that every single Conservative association will be embroiled in an incredible amount of bureaucracy, with me monitoring every bit of their expenditure.
Ms Eagle
They should be afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker—very afraid.
I now want to look at each part of the Bill in turn, beginning with the part on lobbying. The Leader of the House attempted to keep a straight face when he claimed that the proposals will make the lobbying industry more transparent, but I am not sure that even he believes it—almost no one else does. Only this Government could think that the way to clean up lobbying is with a Bill that does not even capture Lynton Crosby. Only this Government could think that the way to clean up lobbying is with a Bill that would allow a lobbyist lobbying an MP about the lobbying Bill to escape the requirement to sign its proposed register.
Three and a half years ago the Prime Minister, when Leader of the Opposition, told us that lobbying was
“the next big scandal waiting to happen”.
He did not tell us then that he was going to do nothing about it for over three years but survive a series of lobbying scandals and then produce a Bill so flawed that it would actually make things worse.
I have two key points to make about the proposals on lobbying set out in part 1. The first relates to the laughably narrow definition of “consultant lobbyist”. Under the Government’s definition, someone will count as a lobbyist only if they lobby directly Ministers or permanent secretaries and if their business is mainly for the purposes of lobbying. It is estimated that that will cover less than one fifth of those people currently working in the £2 billion lobbying industry, and the Association of Professional Political Consultants estimates that only 1% of ministerial meetings organised by lobbyists would be covered. Moreover, it would be extremely easy to rearrange how such lobbying is conducted to evade the need to appear on the new register at all. The Bill is so narrow that it would fail to cover not only the lobbyist currently barnacle-scraping at the heart of No.10, but any of the lobbying scandals that have beset the Prime Minister in this Parliament.
My second point is that there is a real risk that the proposals will make lobbying less transparent than it is now. The Government’s proposed register would cover fewer lobbyists than the existing voluntary register run by the UK Public Affairs Council.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Is not the truth that far too many organisations are wasting their members’ money on hiring professional lobbyists and that their chief executives and principles would be far better advised to communicate directly with Members of Parliament, rather than farming that out to third-party organisations?
Ms Eagle
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the Government had better get right all the issues of privilege, because otherwise MPs might end up having to be registered as lobbyists, which would be completely ridiculous.
The Bill also does not propose any code of conduct for lobbyists, which is a step backwards from the various voluntary registers that already govern parts of the industry. The Bill is so bad that it has achieved the unique feat of uniting both transparency campaigners and the lobbying industry against it. The Association of Professional Political Consultants spoke for them all when it told the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that it sees
“a very real risk that the overall effect will be to reduce transparency”.
The Opposition firmly believe that we need greater transparency in lobbying, not less. We will table a number of amendments to the Bill to bring in a universal register of all professional lobbyists, with a code of conduct backed by effective sanctions. We will also table amendments to close the revolving door between ministerial jobs and the private sector, and we will close the loophole that allows Lynton Crosby to be at the heart of No. 10 and yet to evade accountability and avoid publishing his client list.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
This morning I met representatives of Anti-Slavery International and we planned a campaign together. They are not my constituents but we aim to involve trade unions in the campaign, representing working people. All three parts of the campaign are threatened by parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill, yet Lynton Crosby’s activities are not touched by it. Is that not wrong?
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Lady makes a very compelling case. A moment ago she spoke about transparency. Does she agree that that should include financial transparency so that we can see a genuine, good-faith estimate of how much money has been spent on lobbying activities and thus compare what the large multinational corporations are spending versus non-profit organisations?
Ms Eagle
The hon. Lady makes another good point. We have to see what the size and value is as well as the fact that there have been meetings.
Part 2 covers third-party campaigning in the run-up to an election. All hon. Members will remember how the Prime Minister used to evangelise about the big society, but in one of the most sinister bits of legislation that I have seen in some time, this Bill twists the rules on third-party campaigning to scare charities and campaigners away from speaking out. It is an assault on the big society that the Prime Minister once claimed to revere. I say this because part 2 broadens significantly what activities will be caught by the phrase “election campaign”. That is set out in detail in new schedule 8A to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
Part 2 creates in clause 26 a new and extremely wide definition of “electoral purposes”. It is clear that these changes will have wide-ranging implications for many hundreds of charities and campaigners local and national, large and small. Some of them have told us that they will have to pull back from almost all engagement in debates on public policy in the year before the election. These changes have created massive uncertainty for those who may fall within the regulations in a way that the Electoral Commission has deplored. The changes will mean that third-party campaigning will be restricted even if it was not intended to affect the outcome of an election—for example, engaging in public policy debate. Staff costs and overheads will also have to be included in what has to be declared—something that does not apply in this way to political parties. The Electoral Commission has said that these changes could have a “dampening effect” on public debate. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has said that the changes will
“have the result of muting charities and groups of all sorts and sizes on the issues that matter most to them and the people that they support.”
38 Degrees has said that the changes will
“have a chilling effect on British democracy”.
Ms Eagle
Conservative Members might not like the causes that 38 Degrees takes up, but surely we live in a free society and it has the right to do so. The hon. Lady has rather betrayed some of the partisan motivation that lies behind this Bill. Since she does not like 38 Degrees, perhaps she will listen to the TaxPayers Alliance, which has said:
“The bill is a serious threat to independent politics that will stifle free and open democratic debate.”
Yesterday even Owen Jones and “Guido Fawkes” were agreeing that this Bill is “undemocratic”, so the Government have managed to cause some unlikely coalitions, of which that is probably the most unlikely. We must be under no illusion: if these rules pass into law unamended they will seriously undermine free and fair democratic debate in the run-up to the next election. Blogs may well be regulated and stifled too. The changes in part 2 have met with universal opposition. Even “ConservativeHome” and “Liberal Democrat Voice” have joined “LabourList” in publishing highly critical pieces condemning their own Government’s clampdown on free speech.
Angie Bray
I am sure that the hon. Lady would agree that it is perfectly reasonable to describe 38 Degrees as a lobbying outfit. That is what it calls itself; it comprises lobbyists. I have been lobbied by it on many different occasions. Unless she is saying that to call somebody a lobbyist is somehow an insult, I think that it is perfectly legitimate to call it a lobbying organisation.
Ms Eagle
The hon. Lady needs to look at her own Government’s Bill to see that it defines 38 Degrees not as a lobbying organisation but as a third-party organisation, and the Bill attempts to gag the ability of third-party organisations to make points on policy and politics during an election campaign.
Stephen Doughty
In my time at Oxfam I had to take numerous pieces of advice on staying within the law in terms of campaigning. Charities take these things very seriously. At Oxfam I had the benefit of a legal department to go to for advice. Many smaller charities do not have that benefit, and it will be very difficult for them to interpret this dog’s breakfast of a Bill. That will result in them curtailing their activities.
Mr Charles Walker
I do not have a huge amount of time for 38 Degrees, but I am not going to address my concerns about that organisation. In the run-up to the general election, Mind and Rethink, two charities with which I am closely involved, want to set out a number of challenges for the main political parties. Does the hon. Lady feel that that will be caught by the Bill?
Ms Eagle
It is beholden on the Government to demonstrate that it will not, given that they have widened the meaning of the term “political purposes” and cut the amount of money that can be spent before it is necessary to register; that part of the Bill deals with coalitions and how they account for the cost of what they are doing; and that they have inserted some extremely uncertain definitions of “electoral purposes”. I do not want to get into a Committee-stage debate, but the Government cannot simply declaim that nothing has changed when they have changed, broadened and widened definitions and cut the amount of money that can be spent lawfully during an election period.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend accept that in addition to the restrictions she has described, the effect of the Electoral Commission having to police these very vague arrangements and possibly introduce sanctions after an election means that self-censorship will be the order of the day, particularly for a large number of smaller organisations, given that sanctions may be taken against them possibly a year, two years or three years after the process has taken place?
Ms Eagle
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the chilling and dampening effect on the vibrancy of our democracy of this Government’s approach.
I thought at first that the Government might just have made a mess of the drafting—after all, they often do that and this Bill is certainly a mess—but it seems from the Cabinet Office response and from what the Leader of the House said today that they have deliberately set out to gag critical third-party voices. They have had repeated opportunities to address the concerns put to them by charities and campaigners, but they have dismissed them. This leaves me with the only conclusion that we can draw—that this is a deliberate and cynical attempt by the Government to insulate their policies and their record from scrutiny in the run up to the 2015 general election. Part 2 is totally unacceptable in its current form and it must be changed.
The Leader of the House tried to justify these draconian measures by arguing that they tackle the problem of third-party spending in politics, but he completely misses the point. Third parties spent less than 10% of the money spent by political parties in the last election. We all know that one of the biggest problems in our democracy today is the election expenditure arms race between political parties, not the expenditure of third parties. That is what drives the search for big-money donors. This Bill was a chance to tackle the big money in our politics, and the Government have completely squandered it.
This Government are happy to be financed by donors who pay huge sums to come for dodgy dinners in Downing street. They are a Government so shameless in their search for big-party donations that they were happy to split between the two coalition parties the proceeds of the late Joan Edwards’ half-a-million-pounds of life savings, which she had generously bequeathed to the nation in her will. Their squalid behaviour is left unaffected by this Bill; instead, it seeks to silence legitimate third-party campaigning organisations.
Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend had any indication that the Government have considered the impact on third-party organisations wishing to speak out in the run-up to the referendum on Scottish independence, which will fall within the 12-month period?
Ms Eagle
Again, I am afraid there is very little evidence I can give my hon. Friend that the Government have considered in any serious way the impact of anything, since they consulted nobody before they came up with these proposals.
Finally, I want to comment on part 3, which centres on trade union membership records. There appears to be no policy motive for the introduction of this new law other than as a vehicle for cheap, partisan attacks on the trade unions, of which only a minority are actually affiliated to the Labour party.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Did my hon. Friend notice that when the Leader of the House spoke about trade unionism he absolutely refused to give way? Is that an indication of an attack on democracy? Many a democracy has failed after that very type of attack on the trade union movement. I am a member of the GMB. Does my hon. Friend agree that trade unionists are not obscure, abstract people? The people who have inundated me and other Members with correspondence are cleaners, teachers, engineers, bus drivers and firefighters, and they, in a democracy, are entitled to be heard.
Ms Eagle
I agree wholeheartedly.
Officials from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have been totally unable to explain the problem that this part of the Bill is designed to solve. During a belated consultation meeting with the TUC—it took place after the Bill had been published—BIS officials could cast no light on why part 3 exists at all. Nor were they able to explain the origin of these proposals beyond their oft-repeated mantra that the provisions contained in part 3
“came out of a high level meeting between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister”.
I think that revelation tells us all we need to know about the grubby, partisan nature of the measures.
Gavin Shuker
Did we not hear from the Leader of the House that his motivation for introducing these measures is to help the trade unions keep better records? It strikes me as odd that we know how many members the Labour party, the Liberal Democrat party and the trade unions have, but that, when asked to reveal its membership numbers, the Conservative party answers, “We can’t do that, because our records are too bad.”
Ms Eagle
I am rather sorry that I gave way to my hon. Friend, because he has just ruined one of my lines from later in my speech. Great minds think alike.
These proposals seem deliberately designed to burden trade unions with additional cost and bureaucracy from a Government who claim they are against red tape. This is despite the fact that unions already have a statutory duty to maintain registers of members. I understand from the TUC that neither the certification officer nor ACAS has made any representations to suggest that that was not already sufficient. The Government have to date failed to provide any evidence or rationale for these changes, so I can only conclude that this is a deliberate attempt to hamper unions with red tape because a minority of them have the temerity to support the Labour party.
I have serious concerns about the implications of these changes for the security of membership data. We all know that the blacklisting of trade union members may well still exist in our country. Blacklisting has ruined many lives and these changes could have some very dangerous implications, especially in the construction industry, where many are afraid to declare their membership of a trade union openly for fear of the repercussions.
Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)
I am Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has not had the opportunity to discuss this matter because of the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny. The fundamental human rights of association and privacy have been raised with us by the TUC. Does my hon. Friend agree that my Committee should have had the opportunity to scrutinise this Bill before it came to the Floor of the House?
Ms Eagle
Once more, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That is the third Committee that the Government have managed to ignore or insult with the production of this appallingly, rapidly constructed Bill. I hope they will reconsider the Bill and think about delaying its passage so that parliamentary Committees, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights, can do the job the House asks of them on suggested Government legislation.
I hope that the Government will respond next week to our amendments on issues of confidentiality and give the assurances we seek in these important areas.
The Government have arbitrarily singled out trade unions for this attack but have given no reason why other membership organisations should not be covered by these costly and disruptive requirements. It is beyond irony, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) has pointed out, to be lectured by the Conservative party on how to ensure that membership data are accurate when it will not even confirm how many members it has left. Perhaps it should be forced by law to appoint a highly remunerated assessor who can get to the truth of it for all of us. This is another in a long list of anti-employee proposals from a Government who always seem to want to make it easier to fire rather than hire workers and to weaken rather than strengthen their security at work. We will table a range of amendments to this part of the Bill to address concerns.
I also want to say this to the Government: we are proud of our direct link to millions of working people up and down this country and we believe in the right of working people to organise and stand up to unfair treatment in the workplace. Free trade unions are part of a free and vibrant society, and the partisan use of the law in an attempt to disrupt their efficient administration is yet another sinister aspect of this appalling Bill.
This is a bad Bill that will make things worse, not better. It makes lobbying less transparent and it places a sinister gag on charities and campaigners who want to make legitimate contributions to our democratic debate. It is a Bill that the Government should be ashamed of. It is incompetent. It is rushed. It has been developed in a high-level meeting between the Prime Minister and his deputy, but with no other consultation. It is a sop to vested interests, an illiberal attack on democratic debate and involvement, and a cheap, partisan and cynical misuse of the legislative process for the Government’s own ends. We will vote against it and I urge Government Members to join us.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for some time in the middle of September?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The business for the week commencing 2 September is as follows:
Monday 2 September—Launch of the second report from the Procedure Committee on private Members’ Bills, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the future for postal services in rural areas, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the all-party parliamentary cycling group’s report, “Get Britain Cycling”. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 3 September—Second Reading of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill.
Wednesday 4 September—Opposition day [6th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 5 September—A general debate on high-cost credit, followed by a general debate on the north-east independent economic review report. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 6 September—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 9 September will include:
Monday 9 September—Consideration in Committee of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Day 1).
Tuesday 10 September—Consideration in Committee of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Day 2).
Wednesday 11 September—Conclusion in Committee of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name Opposed Private Business for consideration.
Thursday 12 September—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 13 September—Private Members’ Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 9 and 12 September will be:
Monday 9 September—General debate on an e-petition relating to age-related tax allowances.
Thursday 12 September—General debate on UK trade and investment.
As this is the last business questions before the summer recess, may I, on behalf of the House, thank all its staff for their hard work? I hope that they have a good and very well-deserved break before we return at the beginning of September.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for the first two weeks in September.
It is Nelson Mandela’s 95th birthday today, and I am sure that all Members across the House will want to wish him well as he fights his illness in hospital.
Last week I said that this Government have a blind spot when it comes to women. The Leader of the House told me that he did not agree, so what does he have to say about yesterday’s mocking of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who was miaowed and clawed at behind her back while speaking in the Chamber because of the outfit she was wearing? Does he think that this boorish behaviour by his Back Benchers is acceptable?
As the House adjourns for the summer recess this afternoon, may I take this opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, and all the House staff for the support provided to Members and their staff throughout the year? We are very grateful to all House staff for the support that they give us.
Before everyone heads off to their constituencies for the recess, I would like to give some end-of-term awards. The Man of the People award goes to the Chancellor for his posh burgers and mockney accent. The Bungle of the Year award goes to the Defence Secretary for his spectacularly bad attempt at making a statement to the House on Army reserves. The most contested category, Smear of the Year, was this week snatched by the late entry by the Health Secretary, ably assisted by his barnacle-scraper, Lynton Crosby.
With the Lords due to sit until the end of July and the Commons not due to return until early September, it is clear that this Parliament is no more joined up than this Government. With the two Houses now completely out of kilter, it is practically impossible for Joint Committees to meet. Does the Leader of the House really think that that is a desirable state of affairs, and will he make sure that this practice is brought to an end?
I note that we are to discuss the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill in the first two weeks back. The Bill is not even 24 hours off the press but it is already being derided by campaigners, charities and lobbyists alike for failing to regulate over 80% of the industry. The Government’s Bill is a cheap, partisan attack on Opposition funding. It is constructed solely to divert attention from the real lobbying scandals of their dodgy donors dinners in Downing street.
It has been a bad week for Australians both in the Ashes and in No. 10. At Prime Minister’s questions on Wednesday, the Prime Minister once more pointedly avoided answering the question of whether he had discussed the plain packaging of cigarettes with Lynton Crosby. The Leader of the House may remember saying when he was Health Secretary:
“The evidence is clear that packaging helps to recruit smokers, so it makes sense to consider having less attractive packaging. It’s wrong that children are being attracted to smoke by glitzy designs on packets.”
Why has he changed his mind on this issue? I wonder whether he agrees with the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who tweeted yesterday:
“I’ve seen how election strategists drive current policy & simply untrue to suggest otherwise. It’s why we must know who else pays them”.
Quite so. It is clearly now in the public interest that the House is given full information about Lynton Crosby’s influence. At a minimum, he should publish his client list immediately. Will the Leader of the House support our calls for an inquiry into whether the ministerial code has been broken?
In his hysterical attacks on trade unions in the past few weeks, the Prime Minister has been emulating Senator McCarthy, but this week it has been more like Big Brother from “Nineteen Eighty-Four”. In that masterful novel, George Orwell wrote that the Party’s slogan was:
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
I think that we might just have found the Conservative party’s new motto.
We may be living in Tory Orwellian times in which the Government think that Newspeak trumps reality, but we will not let their propaganda go unchecked. They can make all the claims they like about the NHS, but we know that it was they who did not act on 14 failing trusts. They can pretend that plan A is working, but we know that we have had a weaker recovery than during the great depression and that long-term unemployment is at a 17-year high. They can blame anyone other than themselves for as long as they like, but the British people will not be fooled. If the Conservatives want to play Orwellian games for the next two years, they can carry on as they did last week, but they should not think for a minute that they will get away with it.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. I am not sure whether, in the midst of what she said, there were any requests relating to the future business, but I will try to answer the points that she raised.
Most pleasurably, I join the shadow Leader of the House in sending our congratulations to ex-President Mandela on his 95th birthday. He is an inspiration and an extraordinary man. The extraordinary nature of his capacities is further illustrated by the promising progress in his health. That is something in which we can all take pleasure.
The hon. Lady asked about the relationship between sittings in this House and in the other place. I am happy to discuss the operation of Joint Committees with colleagues across both Houses. That is something that we should certainly look at. However, it is for this House and the other place to determine when they sit. The other place does not sit in September, whereas we rise earlier for the summer and sit in September. We have different approaches, but they are not necessarily disjointed because there are differences in the flow of business in the two Houses that make them perfectly sensible.
The hon. Lady talked about the lobbying Bill, which was published yesterday. It will indeed have its Second Reading and pass through Committee in the first two weeks back in September. I was surprised by what she said; I do not understand how the Bill can be an attack on Opposition funding since it says nothing about Opposition funding. The only thing that is in the Bill—
Mr Lansley
It is not in the Bill. Let me make that clear to the hon. Lady.
I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition earlier this week because he said in a speech that he wanted the participation of trade union members in the political funds of trade unions to be a deliberate choice. If that is what he wants, the Bill is available as a legislative framework to enable it to happen. If he believes in it, he should be willing to legislate for it. We have made him that offer and he should respond to it. In practical terms, if he wants to take up that offer and demonstrate that he means what he says, he needs to come back to us in the next three or four weeks to enable those amendments to be available for the Committee stage in September.
The hon. Lady talked about the NHS. I have listened to the exchanges, but the shadow Leader of the House should not have entered into the argument about our not doing anything in relation to the 14 trusts. I know about the matter because I have been Secretary of State for Health and shadow Secretary of State for Health. I was shadow Secretary of State when the then Secretary of State and Minister of State stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that Mid Staffs was an isolated incident and that nothing comparable was happening anywhere else in the NHS. They dismissed the idea that there were systemic problems in the NHS—they waved it away. I stood at the Dispatch Box for the Opposition on 30 November 2009 and asked why the then Secretary of State was dismissing the problems at the Basildon and Thurrock hospitals and saying that nothing would be done about them.
When I was Secretary of State, I stood at the Dispatch Box and made it clear that we were taking responsibility by moving NHS trusts towards foundation trust status not on the basis of their finances and governance, but on the basis of achieving quality. I said that we would use the NHS Trust Development Authority to make that happen. Agreements were put in place with NHS trusts to make that happen. I am sorry, but I will not take any lectures from the Labour party on that issue.
I will also not accept lessons from the Labour party on standardised packaging, which again relates to my former role as Secretary of State for Health. I saw what the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Cabinet Secretary yesterday. I am afraid that it proceeds from a complete misunderstanding or misapprehension of the position. As Secretary of State for Health, I made no bid to the then Leader of the House for a place for such legislation in the Queen’s Speech for this Session. Why was that? As I said in the consultation that I launched on standardised packaging, I had an open mind. My successor as Secretary of State and other Health Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box and said that the Government have continued not to make a decision. As there was no bid from the Department of Health for a place in the Queen’s Speech, there cannot, by definition, have been any decision to take it out. I am afraid that this has all proceeded from a misunderstanding.
To be more cheerful, I hope the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) enjoys the sunshine in Wallasey over the summer. When she is thinking about the Opposition day debate, I am sure she will find that she still has a number of possible subjects to choose from in September. Perhaps she will choose to have a debate to celebrate the Government’s cutting net migration by a third, or a debate to celebrate the fact that the latest unemployment figures are down and employment is up, with 1.3 million more new jobs in the private sector. We are creating jobs in the private sector nearly five times as fast as jobs are being lost in the public sector. Perhaps she will choose a debate to celebrate the crime survey statistics published this morning that show a year-on-year reduction of 9%, taking the figures down to their lowest level since the survey began. That is all being achieved under this Government.
Finally, the hon. Lady talked about a motto. Let me remind her that at the Labour party conference last year, its motto was apparently going to be “one nation”. I have looked, but in this calendar year in this Chamber the Leader of the Opposition has never uttered the words “one nation”. We know why he has not done so. The Labour party is not a one-nation party; it is a trade union party, not the party of one nation. It is owned by the trade unions and it does not represent the people of this country.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 15 July—Debate on a motion relating to justice and home affairs, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to Europol.
Tuesday 16 July—Second Reading of the Defence Reform Bill, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution relating to the European Union (Referendum) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.
Wednesday 17 July—Opposition day (fifth allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a general debate on Trident alternatives review.
Thursday 18 July—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by the launch of a report from the Communities and Local Government Committee on the private rented sector, followed by the launch of a report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on “Revisiting Rebuilding the House: The Impact of the Wright Reforms”, followed by a general debate on the economic implications for the United Kingdom of an EU-US trade and investment agreement, followed by matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee. If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments. The House will not adjourn until the Speaker has signified Royal Assent.
The provisional business for the week commencing 2 September will include:
Monday 2 September—A debate on a motion relating to the future for postal services in rural areas, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the all-party parliamentary cycling group’s report “Get Britain Cycling”. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 18 July will be:
Thursday 18 July—General debate on UK shale gas development.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority’s proposals for MPs’ pay and pensions in the 2015 Parliament have just been published. Does the Leader of the House agree that any decisions that IPSA makes after the public consultation on this package of measures should reflect wider economic circumstances and what is happening in the public and private sectors?
Last week I asked the Leader of the House to protect the extra time to scrutinise the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. In response the Leader of the House said he would
“take steps to ensure that the time that is available for that debate is protected”—[Official Report, 4 July 2013; Vol. 565, c. 1061.]
On Monday and Tuesday we had more than four hours of statements, wiping out all the extra time that the right hon. Gentleman had so generously granted. Will he now tell us why his assurances to this House appear to carry such weight in the Government? And will he tell me exactly what was the point of appearing to grant extra time in the first place?
The Conservative party has a blind spot when it comes to women. First, the Mayor of London said that women only go to university to find husbands. Then the Prime Minister completely forgot about British Wimbledon champions Ann Jones and Virginia Wade when complimenting Andy Murray on his fantastic achievement last Sunday. Finally we had the Foreign Secretary exercising his well-known diplomatic skills by using a phrase about my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) that I cannot repeat in the House. This Tory party is so modern that its members either ignore women completely or casually insult them. It looks like the unconscious bias training that the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) is meant to be organising for them really is not working.
Apparently the Deputy Prime Minister was seen out for dinner last week with Mick Jagger.
Ms Eagle
Indeed. I hear they were discussing Lib Dem theme songs for the next election. How about “You can’t always get what you want”, or “Under my thumb”? Personally, I think that “It’s all over now” might be much more appropriate.
We have all been enjoying the glorious weather. It was lovely to see Tory MPs skipping gleefully around this place last Friday. The barbecues were sizzling, the birds were singing, and the Tory party was banging on about Europe. But even before their prime ministerial burgers were properly digested, they were back to their old ways. After the Home Secretary’s U-turn on the European arrest warrant, another Euro mutiny is brewing. She has been promising the Chairs of the Home Affairs, Justice and European Scrutiny Committees time to scrutinise the Government’s opt-out plan for the last nine months. Why, then, did the Leader of the House come to the Dispatch Box on Monday with an emergency business statement to force a vote, bypassing any kind of Select Committee scrutiny at all?
Not only have the Government shown no respect to those Committees or the House, but they have done so for no reason. The EU treaties, the Commission and even the Government’s own legislation say that they do not need a vote before beginning negotiations, so why is the Leader of the House forcing a vote on Monday? Will he recognise his mistake and put off the vote until the Committees have had time to scrutinise the Government’s plans, as the Home Secretary promised?
While the Leader of the Opposition is taking bold steps to remake our politics, the Prime Minister is failing to answer questions about his dodgy donors. Is not the truth, as the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) told the BBC yesterday, that in the Conservative party money buys influence. Adrian Beecroft donated half a million pounds and was then allowed to write a report calling for the destruction of workers’ rights. JCB chairman Anthony Bamford donated £2.5 million and was then allowed to write a report on manufacturing. At the recent Tory fundraising ball, the Prime Minister had the temerity to tell his millionaire guests that their donations enabled him to give a tax cut to all their millionaire pals and hedge fund friends. I have calculated that 18 hedge fund bosses donated over £24 million before attending their cosy dinners at No. 10.
The Prime Minister was forced by the scandal to ask Lord Gold to investigate, but it has been more than a year and we have not heard a word. Will the Leader of the House tell us when he expects this important report to be published, and does he know why it has taken so long? A quarter of those on The Sunday Times rich list are donors to the Conservative party. They said that we were all in this together, but is not the truth that this is a Government run by the rich and for the rich?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her questions—I think that there were one or two. As she rightly acknowledged, decisions about Members’ pay, pensions and expenses are not made by this House; they are now matters for IPSA, which is an independent body. IPSA has today published its recommendations on the future remuneration package for MPs from 2015. That is for consultation before any final decision is made in the autumn. I urge anyone who has a view on the proposals to use the opportunity to respond to IPSA. The Government, like the Opposition, have set out our views. We have made it clear that we expect IPSA to take the broader fiscal climate into account, in particular the context of the Government’s approach to public service pay and pensions. I expect that we will maintain that position in any further response to the consultation. I should add that my party’s view is that in tough times we should see the cost of politics going down, not up.
On the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, I was in the Chamber for much of the debate and am confident that in the course of the debate we were able to examine those issues. Indeed, I was pleased by the way in which we were able to respond substantively and positively to the further report from the Parliament Commission on Banking Standards only a short time after its publication.
I am afraid that I do not agree with the shadow Leader of the House at all about her characterisation of the Conservative party’s views in relation to women. As the party of the first woman Prime Minister in this country, we have understood—I have certainly understood since I was but a boy in political terms—the exemplary role that women can play in politics and in other aspects of life. [Interruption.]
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Notwithstanding the night life in Kettering, will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The business for next week will be:
Monday 8 July—Remaining stages of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill (Day 1).
Tuesday 9 July—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, followed by consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Wednesday 10 July—Opposition Day [5th allotted day] (1st part). There will be a debate entitled “The Effect of Government Policies on Disabled People” on an Opposition motion, followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism, and the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
Thursday 11 July—Debate on a motion relating to parliamentary consent to arming of anti-Government forces in Syria, followed by a general debate to mark the 25th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster.
The subjects for both debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 12 July—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 15 July will include:
Monday 15 July—Second Reading of the Defence Reform Bill.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 11 July and 5 September will be:
Thursday 11 July—Debate on social care reform for working age disabled people, followed by debate on large scale solar arrays.
Thursday 5 September—Debate on the sixth report of the Communities and Local Government Committee on councillors on the front line.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. We have all been watching with concern as events in Egypt unfold. There are many British nationals in the country, so will the Leader of the House ensure that Members are regularly updated on this fast-moving situation?
The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill returns to this place on Monday, as the right hon. Gentleman has announced. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and I asked him last week whether he would provide extra time to ensure consideration of all the necessary amendments stemming from the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. I thus thank the right hon. Gentleman for responding by granting an extra half day, which will allow some extra time for this important Bill? Will he confirm that he will protect the additional time he has allocated so that we do not lose it to Government statements and find ourselves back where we started?
This Government have a woeful record on telling the media what is happening before they tell this House—in breach of the ministerial code. Yesterday, we reached a new low with the Defence Secretary’s spectacular failure to provide Members with crucial documents relating to his statement on Army reserves. You, Mr Speaker, have rightly admonished the Defence Secretary in the strongest possible terms, and today’s Order Paper says that there will be a clarification statement, but by the time I rose to speak, we had still not received it. Surely the Defence Secretary should now have the guts to come back and subject himself to the scrutiny of Members, who will finally have adequate information in front of them.
I pointed out a few weeks ago that the Education Secretary is at the bottom of the Government’s correspondence class, with a damning report from the Procedure Committee showing that eight out of 10 of his responses to MPs are answered late. This week, we have discovered why: he has been so busy composing an edict on the content of his departmental letters that he is not doing the day job. Apparently, he has demanded prose worthy of Jane Austen, George Orwell and, rather oddly, Matthew Parris. Does the Leader of the House agree that if the Education Secretary spent less time telling everyone else how to do their jobs and more time doing his, we would not have a shortage of a quarter of a million primary school places? Does he also agree that this is further proof that with this Government it is all about spin and never about substance?
The Back-Bench Bill to be presented by the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) is becoming a classic parliamentary farce. I hear that in order to keep Members here for the big day, the Prime Minister has been forced to invite his mutinous colleagues round for a barbecue tonight. While millionaire donors get kitchen suppers at No. 10, the poor Back Benchers are shoved out into the garden.
Ms Eagle
If it is a pyjama party, perhaps Rebekah Brooks should be there.
I am told that the Prime Minister will be flipping the “posh burgers”, while the Cabinet will be dishing them out. That may sound like a rare treat, but there will be trouble if members of the Cabinet do their burgers the same as they do their policy: reconstituted, undercooked and over-garnished. I certainly would not relish them.
I note that the Tory Taliban continue to fire on all cylinders. Tomorrow they will debate the introduction of a Margaret Thatcher day, and next Friday they will debate the abolition of any protection against sexual harassment in the workplace. Their alternative Queen’s Speech is so off the wall that I cannot help wondering what they will come up with next. A Bill to disfranchise all but the landed gentry, perhaps? The repeal of the Factory Acts? A Bill to confirm that the earth is indeed flat?
It is not just the Prime Minister’s Back Benchers who are out of touch. On Tuesday, Tory welfare Minister Lord Freud denied that there was any link between the rise of food banks and the Government’s benefit chaos. Since the Government’s benefit changes, there has been a sevenfold increase in visits to food banks in Wirral. They were visited by 9,000 people this year, and in most cases the reason was the benefit changes. This is a Government who have given a tax cut to their millionaire donors while plunging a third of a million more children into poverty. May we have a debate on what they can possibly mean by their increasingly ludicrous phrase “We’re all in this together”?
This week, in an attempt to seem like a man of the people, the Prime Minister told a group of Kazakh students that he aspired to be the most high-profile member of an élite club at an élite school: Harry Potter. That outraged Potter fans everywhere, and inspired The Daily Telegraph to organise a poll which concluded that he was actually more like Draco Malfoy. The Defence Secretary cannot make a statement to the House, the Education Secretary cannot answer questions, and the Chancellor cannot organise a burger stunt. Is not the reality that the Prime Minister is presiding over a Cabinet of muggles?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the business statement. Let me begin by saying that I think all Members continue to be very disturbed by the turn of events in Cairo, and in Egypt generally. As we know, this is a very fast-moving and fluid situation. The Foreign Office has increased our consular presence in Egypt. I join my colleagues in advising British citizens to avoid non-essential travel to the country, apart from the Red Sea resorts, and to monitor, as necessary, the travel advice that is available on the Foreign Office website.
Like the Foreign Secretary and, I think, all Members on both sides of the House, I hope for restraint and calm and an end to the violence—especially given the very disturbing accounts of sexual violence—but I also believe that this provides us with a salutary lesson about the nature of democracy. What is necessary in a democracy is for people to resolve their conflicts peacefully, and to do so by means of democratic processes. I think we all agree that while that should not include military intervention, which we deplore, we expect those who are elected to govern in a constitutional framework that respects the rights of minorities and enables all people who live in a democracy to feel that they are fully represented. To answer the hon. Lady’s question directly, I know that the Foreign Secretary and other colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will take every step to ensure that the House is kept fully informed.
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s welcoming the additional time for the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. Never let it be said that we are not a listening set of business managers. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) is here, but I am grateful for his representations. We are moving towards the end of term before the summer recess. As the House knows, inevitably, a range of issues will require to be announced before the recess, but we will take steps to ensure that the time that is available for that debate is protected, so that it happens as planned.
The hon. Lady asked about yesterday’s statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Mr Speaker, you will have received a letter from him apologising for the Ministry of Defence’s failure to deliver documents relating to the statement. As the hon. Lady rightly said, the House will see a written ministerial statement from my right hon. Friend. I have the text of the written ministerial statement—
Mr Lansley
I understand that the hon. Lady does not have the text. I will not read it all out now as it would take too long, but I will gladly share it with Members and it will be available in the Vote Office shortly.
Business of the House
Angela Eagle Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The business for the next week is as follows:
Monday 1 July—Motion to approve a ways and means resolution relating to the Finance (No.2) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Finance (No.2) Bill (Day 1).
Tuesday 2 July—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance (No.2) Bill (Day 2).
Wednesday 3 July—Estimates Day [1st Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on public expenditure and health care services, followed by a debate on Rail 2020. Further details will be given in the Official Report. At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
[The details are as follows: The Health Committee, 11th report, 2012-13, Public expenditure on health and care services, HC 651, and the Government response (CM 8624); and the Transport Committee, 7th report, 2012-13, Rail 2020, and the Government response, 9th special report, 2012-13, HC 1059.]
Thursday 4 July—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill, followed by general debate on NATO, followed by general debate on corporate structures and financial crime, followed by general debate on the economic implications for the UK of an EU/US trade and investment agreement. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 5 July—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 8 July will include:
Monday 8 July—Remaining stages of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill.
Tuesday 9 July—Consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Wednesday 10 July—Opposition half day [4th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by the Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration.
Thursday 11 July—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee, including a general debate to mark the 25th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster.
Friday 5 July—Private Members’ Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 4 and 11 July will be:
Thursday 4 July—Debate on the 8th report of the International Development Select Committee on post-2015 development goals, followed by debate on 10th report of the International Development Select Committee on Pakistan.
Thursday 11 July—Debate on social care reform for working age disabled people.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business.
We are approaching the 65th birthday of the NHS, so will the Leader of the House now admit the truth: that in a reversal of their infamous airbrushed election poster, it is clear that this Government have cut the NHS and not the deficit? The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill is due to return to the House on 8 July, but with only one day of debate for all its remaining stages. After the important recommendations from the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards last week, which the Prime Minister claimed he supported, why has the Leader of the House scheduled only one day of debate? I am sure he agrees with me that we must act to reform the problems in our banking system, so will he now undertake to provide a second day to ensure that all the necessary amendments have time to be heard?
Does the Leader of the House agree with the assessment that the Tory handout EU referendum Bill of the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), which reaches the House next Friday, is
“a transparently cynical attempt to combat the rise of UKIP and to try to appease Tory backbenchers”?
I see that the Leader of the House does not, but those are not my words; they are the words of Stockton South Tory Councillor Mark Chatburn. How long does the Leader of the House think that this farcical misuse of the private Member’s Bill procedure by Tory Whips will carry on before the obsessive anti-Europeans realise they have been sold a pup?
This week, we have seen two alternative Queen’s Speeches put down on the Order Paper, one from the self-proclaimed Tory Taliban and one from Labour MPs. They want women to lose their right to protection if they are sexually harassed at work. We want respect for our armed forces. They want to scrap the BBC. We want fair prices on our railways. They want to bring back smoking indoors. We want to tackle the scourge of zero-hours contracts. I am proud of our Labour Back Benchers and the work they are doing, but can the Leader of the House tell us whether he can say the same about his?
This alternative agenda kicks off next week with the plan to hijack the August bank holiday and turn it into Margaret Thatcher day. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I can see that there is a lot of support for that among those on the Government Benches. Some might think that they are too obsessed with this controversial and divisive figure from the past, but I do not think they are showing nearly enough zeal. Why celebrate her once a year—why not every week? Are they not missing an opportunity? If they were real believers, would they not want Thursday, Friday, Thatcherday? I think she would be very disappointed in them. Perhaps we could name other days after current members of the Cabinet— 29 February could be named after the Deputy Prime Minister, because it gets noticed only once every four years and makes absolutely no difference to anything in the meantime.
Yesterday’s spending review underlined the scale of this Chancellor’s economic failure, with living standards falling, the economy stuttering, borrowing up, long-term unemployment up, prices rising faster than wages and bank lending down. He has not even managed to keep his prized triple A rating. He is presiding over the slowest recovery for more than 100 years, and businesses and families across the UK are paying the price. He can put on a mockney accent and eat as many posh burgers as he likes but, unlike millions of people up and down this country, he will never understand what it really feels like to be paying the price for his economic incompetence.
With a public relations man as Prime Minister, this Government are all too quick to issue press releases but too incompetent to deliver them, so we need a debate in Government time on Government incompetence. In their fourth year in office, only one of the 261 new schools they promised in their “priority” building programme has actually been built; only seven of the 576 infrastructure projects they promised have been completed; and they have delivered a paltry 2,000 of the 100,000 new homes they promised under the NewBuy scheme. They said that they would set up a British investment bank to help businesses grow, but no business has yet had help. They said that they would set up the Youth Contract to get young people back to work, but no one has used it. They promised councils £530 million for superfast broadband, but so far they have paid out only £3 million. They said that they want more infrastructure spending, but yesterday revealed a £1 billion cut in capital spending. They said that they would bring down borrowing, but it is £245 billion higher than they planned. Is not the truth that they are posturing, not governing? They are spinning, not delivering. It is not just the Chancellor’s Byron burger stunt that was a sham—it is the whole Government.
Mr Lansley
I do so look forward to the shadow Leader of the House’s response to the business statement, but mainly—normally—for the humour. On this occasion, however, it fell short of her normal high standards, which is a pity—I look forward to future weeks.
The hon. Lady asked about NHS spending. The figures demonstrate that the coalition Government have met their commitment to real-terms increases in NHS resources year on year. In addition, the Chancellor’s statement yesterday confirmed that we will make provision for a further real-terms increase in NHS resources in 2015-16. As she must recognise, that contrasts with my predecessor as Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who regarded real-terms increases for NHS resources as irresponsible—that was the Labour party’s view. We are delivering on our manifesto promises. The NHS could not have afforded Labour’s irresponsible policies.
The hon. Lady asked about time on Report for the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. I direct her to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s response on Tuesday to my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). We are clear that we will welcome, and consider positively and carefully, the Parliamentary Commission’s report and that, where necessary, we will legislate to bring its recommendations into force using that Bill. She must realise that the Government have allowed two days on Report more often than did our predecessors, but that that must be an exception rather than the rule. In this instance, as always, we will consider the requirement for debate on Report and make time available accordingly.
I will tell the hon. Lady exactly what the European Union (Referendum) Bill is about: it is about my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) taking the lead and giving the people of this country a choice. There are Opposition Members who do not share her unduly cynical view and recognise that it is a genuine attempt by Parliament to exercise its responsibility and give people confidence that they can decide our future in Europe. I and my hon. Friends support it, and I hope that hon. Members from all parties will do so too next Friday.
Given the Chancellor’s statement yesterday and the Chief Secretary’s excellent statement today, I am not sure why the hon. Lady tried to rerun some of the arguments from the Opposition that were demolished by the Chief Secretary. If she wants to talk about future business, she can use the half day available to the Opposition on 10 July, and I would be delighted if they chose to debate living standards in this country, given that yesterday’s statement made it clear that a five-year council tax freeze would be available. I and many others saw council tax double under Labour. Yesterday, the Chancellor announced a three-year council tax freeze and two further years available.
In addition, 24 million basic rate taxpayers will benefit by nearly £700 from the coalition Government’s commitment to increase the personal tax allowance. The consequence of not having to impose the fuel duty escalator will be a saving of £40—13p a litre—for the average motorist. If, on the other hand, the hon. Lady wants to debate the economy on 10 July, she will have the opportunity, among other things, to debate why we are in this situation: because they doubled the debt, leaving us with the highest deficit in the OECD and £157 billion of borrowing, which we have reduced by one third to £108 billion this year.
[Interruption.] It is all very well Opposition Members making gestures to suggest flatlining. The economy did not flatline at the end of the Labour Government; it fell, as new statistics tell us, by 7.2%. There was a 7.2% crash in the gross domestic product of this country. That is the basis of the crisis that we had to resolve when we came into office, and if the hon. Lady wants to have a debate on that, we will be very happy to accommodate her.