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

Debate between Angela Smith and Graham Allen

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Angela Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend on that point.

As I was saying, our amendment is designed to return us to the status quo on thresholds and to help protect smaller charities and groups from being caught by legislation, making it virtually impossible for them to participate in the democratic process. That must be right, and the Electoral Commission has suggested, as I pointed out earlier, that the threshold should be raised. Let me quote from the evidence given by Jenny Watson to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee:

“We said again in our written evidence that one practical thing that could be done to make a difference to the Bill would be to raise the thresholds at which people have to register, and we have a particular concern about that as it relates to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, because those thresholds are low.”

Let me ask the Government why the voice of the regulator is being so badly ignored in respect of this legislative process. Why is the Electoral Commission being ignored? We will listen with interest to the Minister’s response on that point.

As far as the limits for controlled expenditure are concerned, our position is clear: the limits need to be defined in the context of meaningful reform of the funding of political parties and of their ability to throw big money at election campaigns. In other words, the Government need to withdraw the Bill and to rethink. They need to enter into meaningful negotiations with the other political parties and to commit to proper consultation and scrutiny of proposals as they emerge, in relation to both political parties and the third sector.

In concluding my remarks, I ask the Minister to think again about not just specific points in this clause, but something more fundamental. The Minister is a Liberal Democrat; I ask him to take back to his Conservative partners the message that the Government’s whole approach to this issue needs to be looked at again. “Think again” is our message to the Government, who should commit to discussions designed to produce meaningful reform within which we can place sensible changes to the rules on third party funding—changes that we can consult on with confidence, knowing that we have done the right thing overall in changing our politics for the better.

[Mr Allen]

Let me, just for a moment, return to our earlier debates, and ask Members in all parts of the Chamber to accept with good grace the Minister’s offer to rewrite clause 26. I do not want any Member in any part of the Chamber to talk about U-turns, or to gloat. I think that the Government have realised that the Bill is flawed in considerable part, and that, to their great credit, they have recognised that clause 26 needs to be rewritten along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) and by my Committee.

No such magnanimity, however, can be extended to clause 27. Clause 27 is the clause that is the most obnoxious to the charities that many of us support and view with great pride. Two things are being attempted. The first is to tie up those charities in red tape, with massive, indeed unprecedented amounts of reporting, and the second is to impose limits on their spending that are far more fierce and far more rigorous than those that currently apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith]

My hon. Friend’s hypothetical example prompts me to point to the supreme irony that the Bill has pulled together the Countryside Alliance and the League Against Cruel Sports in opposition to it.

[Mr Allen]

I am conscious of the justified blandishments of the Chair. I had assumed that I was being required to speak to take us somewhere towards the Division, but I will conclude quickly.

First, thresholds for registration are in clause 27. My Select Committee said:

“In the absence of any evidence that there is a need to lower the threshold for third parties to register with the Electoral Commission, we recommend that the Government revert to the existing levels. To this end, we recommend that clause 27…is removed from the Bill.”

Secondly, as far as the Committee could see, there was no justification for the new lower spending limits. Witness after witness came before the Committee, and not a single one said, “This is fantastic. We have been waiting for ever for the Government to do this on spending limits.” The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said:

“The cost limits are reduced in a way that is neither explicable, nor relevant.”

The NCVO does not know the basis on which the Government decided on the new limits for expenditure, adding:

“One may suggest that they are arbitrary.”

That is why we set our face against those limits, and we say to colleagues in all parts of the House that until there is a proper justification of that, we feel that clause 27 should not progress.

Finally, as a chair of a charity and a trustee, I will remake the point that I made the other day in respect of clause 27. If there is even the faintest question mark over the hard-earned money of my charity, due to the possibility that we may get sucked into legal action and have to pay someone else’s costs on a six-figure basis, I am looking at having to sack people. I am not going to do that. It is no good, Minister, restraining, by some technicality, something that I have worked very hard to create.

Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Wright Reforms

Debate between Angela Smith and Graham Allen

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the publication of the Third Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, on Revisiting ‘Rebuilding the House’: the impact of the Wright reforms, HC 82.

I am delighted to see you, Mr Speaker, in the Chair for this debate, which has some historical resonance. In 1642, our legislative predecessors fought a bloody civil war to control Executive power. They would be aghast at how their hard-won victory had been eroded and overturned and at how the Government are still not directly elected yet control a legitimately elected Parliament, right down to the minutiae of its daily agenda. They would be surprised at the mindset of many individual Members of Parliament, many of whom remain blissfully unaware of the difference between being in an independent Parliament rather than an Executive sausage machine.

The third report of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee does not propose a new civil war, or even a proper separation of powers, but we do reserve the right to heckle the Executive steamroller.

I report to the House that we have examined the work of the Wright Committee, named after its Chair, our distinguished former colleague, Dr Tony Wright. I declare an interest, as a member of that Committee. Wright urged major change, calling on the House to give Back Benchers more say in setting the House’s agenda. Wright recommended the establishment of two new Committees: the Backbench Business Committee and a House Business Committee, which would itself have Back-Bench representation. Wright also proposed the introduction of elections for Chairs and for members of Select Committees, and called for various improvements to the petitions system.

The Wright Committee’s proposals were initially blocked by the then Labour Government—the heirs to Tom Paine and the Fabians had long since given themselves up to Sir Humphrey. But then a new Government—yet to be reprogrammed, and with a radical Leader of the House—acted swiftly to implement some of the key proposals.

It is important briefly to recap on some of those proposals, as many new Members may take as obvious what in fact took years to achieve. They will need to work hard to retain these minor improvements and to have a sense of what their generation needs to build for those parliamentarians who come after them.

The election of Select Committees by Members of Parliament in a secret ballot, rather than their being appointed, was one of the biggest steps forward. The second achievement was the election of Select Committee Chairs by MPs in a secret ballot of the whole House, meaning that they now speak for Parliament and their colleagues, not for the Government or the alternative Government. Our report welcomes the consequent advances in the effectiveness and quality of Commons Select Committees, which is broadly recognised by those who gave evidence to us in our proceedings. Yet the report says that some issues remain and must be addressed if the momentum towards an even more effective set of Select Committees is to be maintained.

It is unacceptable that Government Bills are scrutinised by Committees appointed by Government appointees not elected or even approved on the Order Paper of the House. As a minimum, the House should be asked to endorse—and, where it so wishes, amend—those who are proposed for membership of Government Bill Committees. The legislative scrutiny process in Bill Committees is so unchallenging and so irredeemable that some of us actually helped to invent pre-legislative scrutiny to try to bring some order and some sense to it. Our report underlines that pre-legislative scrutiny must in future be standard practice—an integral and mandatory part of the process of consideration for every Government Bill.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Does the Committee endorse the use of the Select Committee system for pre-legislative scrutiny, which Labour believes to be incredibly important in ensuring that legislation is rigorous and fit for purpose?

[Mr Allen]

Proper pre-legislative scrutiny can be undertaken in many ways, including by Select Committees, elected Committees, or a properly elected Bill Committee. It is not beyond the wit of Members of this House to come up with a system that is far better than having colleagues sitting and reading their newspapers, being told what to do and not to intervene. It is our role to intervene during the progress of legislation in order to make it better, and we should not be told by the Government that that is inappropriate behaviour for Members of Parliament.