Leaving the EU: Customs

Anna Turley Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I agree, and I would draw another historical analogy: it is 60 years ago this year that Nye Bevan issued his famous warning to the Labour party not to send a British Foreign Secretary into the negotiating chamber naked, and that is precisely what this motion would do. It runs directly contrary to our national interest, and the whole country will see how profoundly misguided it is. There is no way of overstating this: every Member who votes for this motion—every one—will be damaging the principles of Cabinet government in the hope of inflicting partisan advantage. It is unforgivable. Coming a week after north-east Labour MPs called for a second referendum—or, as they now euphemistically call it, a people’s vote, as if a referendum were not exactly that—this shows the Opposition in the worst possible light.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given that documents the Government have produced show a devastating impact of at least 11% on the north-east economy, why does the hon. Gentleman continue to lash himself to the mast of this devastating Tory Brexit, which will harm his constituents and mine?

[Mr Clarke]

This is the same “Project Fear” prognosis that we heard in 2016, which has been comprehensively rubbished and which nearly 70% of the hon. Lady’s own constituents rejected—and she continues to lecture me about listening to my constituents and acting in their interests.

The Labour party is unreconciled to Brexit, unwilling to deliver it and unfit to run our country, but the Leader of the Opposition should be thanked for giving us another opportunity to point out the many reasons why Labour’s policy on the customs union and Brexit is so absurd. First, depending on who we ask and on which day, Labour has committed to staying in “a” or “the” customs union, but at the same time says it wants the UK to have a say over future trade deals and arrangements. The whole point is that if we are in the customs union but out of the EU, the UK will have no formal role or veto in trade negotiations, and the EU will have no incentive, let alone legal obligation, to negotiate deals that are in the UK’s interests.

Secondly, Labour’s U-turn towards stay in “a” or “the” customs union clearly breaks a manifesto commitment on which its Members all stood. That manifesto said:

“Labour will set out our priorities in an International Trade White Paper…on the future of Britain’s trade policy”.

We now discover that that White Paper would simply read: “Priority No. 1: give trade policy back to Brussels”.

Thirdly, the EU’s customs tariffs hit the poorest in this country the hardest. The highest EU tariffs are concentrated on food, clothing and footwear, which account for 37% of total tariff revenue, so the poorest British consumers are paying to prop up European industries.

Fourthly, the customs union not only hurts the poorest in our own country; it also supresses the economic growth of the developing world, because EU trade policy encourages cheap imports of raw materials from developing countries, such as coffee, but heavily taxes imports of processed versions of the same good. This means that poorer countries are stuck in a relationship of dependency, whereby there is no incentive to invest in processing technologies, which could lift them from their status as agrarian economies.

Finally, the House should be reminded that during negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, about which Opposition Members made so much fuss in 2015 and 2016, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) gave an impassioned speech to the House in which he concluded that, in negotiating TTIP, we were

“engaging in a race to the bottom”.—[Official Report, 15 January 2015; Vol. 590, c. 1108.]

As Leader of the Opposition, he is now proposing a policy that would completely abrogate the UK’s ability to veto such arrangements in the future, let alone influence their negotiation.

Syria

Anna Turley Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There is to be a Brussels conference later this month that will build on the work done at the London conference, and we will continue to put our efforts into ensuring that that humanitarian support is available.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I understand fully the purpose of the action that has been taken this weekend, and I understand that it was both targeted and limited to degrade chemical weapons and to reinforce the international norm that we do not use chemical weapons. I support the Prime Minister in the action she has taken, but the vast majority of civilian deaths in Syria are a result of bombs, barrel bombs, torture, starvation and other means, not chemical weapons. If this is not about intervening in civil war or about regime change, as the Prime Minister has said, what is the Government’s wider strategy to save Syrian lives? If Assad is still in power in a year’s time and killing and maiming with impunity, what will that mean for “mission accomplished”?

[The Prime Minister]

It is, of course, through the diplomatic and political process that the final resolution of the Syrian conflict can be brought about. That is why we will continue to support the United Nations efforts and the Geneva process, but it needs all parties to be willing to accept the need for bringing about a solution and for ensuring that we can see a peaceful Syria to which displaced people can return and in which the Syrian people can live in peace and security for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Turley Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating those many carers who are looking after people with dementia, and also volunteers who provide services for people with dementia and their carers. We are working with partners across the health system to ensure that more people with dementia than ever before receive a diagnosis, as well as to raise awareness, to ensure that people get an earlier diagnosis, and to provide the care and support that is needed. I am also pleased to say that there are now 2.3 million dementia friends across the country, and that we are doubling spending on dementia research. I will also ensure that members of the Cabinet are given the dementia friends training.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q5. Last night, I attended a meeting of hundreds of Redcar residents who are deeply concerned about rising levels of crime and antisocial behaviour. Crime in Redcar has increased by 18% since 2011. We have lost more than 500 officers and suffered £40 million of cuts to our local policing budget. Will the Prime Minister commit straightaway to give back the money for neighbourhood policing? Will she apologise to the constituents of Redcar and Cleveland who have had to put their hands back in their pockets through the precept to compensate for her massive cuts?

[The Prime Minister]

It is good to see the hon. Lady back in the House.

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), we are providing extra funding for police forces—[Hon. Members: “No, you’re not.”] It is no good Labour Members shaking their heads and saying that, because we are providing extra funding for police forces, and it is of course up to police and crime commissioners to decide how that money is spent.

Co-operatives

Anna Turley Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I, too, am extremely proud to be a Labour and a Co-operative MP. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for bringing this debate.

It is always a pleasure to talk about co-operative values and principles and the contribution that co-operatives make to our economy. It is not just a dynamic that we see today. The impact historically over a huge amount of time, going all the way back to the Rochdale pioneers, shows that co-operative principles were as relevant then as they are today. Those principles, which we see around the world, are voluntary and open membership, democratic member control, economic participation of members, autonomy, independence, education and training, co-operation and concern for community. Those principles all have a great deal to offer for the economic challenges that we face today. Never have the values of self-help, responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity been more important.

With those values in mind, it is incredible to reflect that we see more than 7,000 co-operatives in this country. Co-operatives make a huge contribution of £34 billion to the British economy and are a vital part of the economic picture. A quarter of the UK population are members of co-operatives, and the importance of those values should not be underestimated.

Those values are particularly important today because of the climate and the challenges we face with the global economy. Since the crash in 2008, we have seen a lack of trust in our financial institutions, growing insecurity and instability in globalisation, a wealth of unethical practices and a casino capitalism that brought the crash that has had such devastating consequences. The pressures of the global economy have brought huge opportunities as well as that great disruption. As a result and as the Brexit vote showed, particularly in my constituency, many people feel insecure and left behind by the benefits of globalisation.

As we look forward, the technology-driven change that is reforming the world we live in is opening up exciting possibilities to improve the way we live and work, creating new industries and new kinds of work, and bringing down social barriers. However, it also poses real challenges, particularly in this transition period as the status quo in many areas of our society and economy is swept away. The job for life is now rarer, replaced with less secure work and more self-employment. The next generation of automation could see more jobs replaced by robots. For policy makers, that means grasping new means to manage the resulting economic and social change. For those on the centre left of politics, particularly those of us who are co-operators, the task is even greater, as our commitment to working for an equal and just world faces new frontiers. The need for progressive and co-operative policies—that ensure the gains from the changes of the technology revolution are shared, that people are empowered and that those at threat of losing out are protected—is greater now than ever before.

It is often said that globalisation diminishes the power of the state and renders the traditional levers available to Governments less effective. For the political right, that conforms with their deeply held belief that markets work best without state intervention. As a co-operator, my view is that a co-operative state can play an important role in supporting and encouraging better co-operation, more self-help, more mutual support and fairer regulation.

Co-operative and mutual ideals can help to tackle the growing inequality in the global economy and some of the global insecurities that are seeing communities left behind. As co-operators, we would like to see freelancers coming together to form co-operatives for shared services. Colleagues have given examples of music teachers coming together. We know of examples of co-operators in social care locally and in our co-operative councils movement. There is real flexibility and an opportunity for people to come together to share their services. Instead of being self-employed, with all the flexibility and insecurity that that involves, they have an opportunity to work together and support each other.

We would therefore like to see the Government recognise this growing self-employed workforce in an insecure world and develop organising strategies for self-employed workers, bringing together trade unions and the co-operative sector to find solutions. The development of organising strategies should involve consideration of key priorities for action, including the primary sectors, such as the creative industries, care services and the green economy. In primary services, that includes: credit unions for freelancers, the provision of micro-insurance and related services such as debt collection, tax accounting and legal advice, the scope for platform co-operatives and sources of capital for co-operative business development. Those are vital steps that the Government could support to create a better environment for local co-operatives to thrive.

We would also like to see more profit-sharing proposals. The Co-operative party calls on the Government to legislate to ensure that all businesses with more than 50 employees can set up a profit-sharing scheme with their staff, with a minimum profit share pot set aside based on a calculation of annual profits and financial position. We would like to see duty to involve, in which the European stakeholder approach to business would be embraced. Through duty to involve, employees are given a formal role in making decisions about how a company is run, with works councils operating in workplaces. We welcome the commitment and perhaps belated conversion of the former Home Secretary, now Prime Minister, to co-operative values and principles.

We would like to see employees on company boards. The Co-operative party is calling for company law to be modified to ensure that representation is given to employees and other identified stakeholders in all publicly listed companies. We would like to see tax incentives for employee ownership. As it stands, the Government spend £615 million a year on tax incentives for employee ownership, but it is poorly targeted towards individual shareholdings and the remuneration of senior executives. We would like to see tax relief offered to all-employee share ownership schemes, which require employees to purchase and hold shares for a number of years to benefit. That would save the Government £285 million a year. We are calling for £50 million a year to be invested in giving permanent employee benefit trusts the same tax treatment as other schemes, with the other £235 million targeted at schemes that give employees a collective, democratic voice.

We would also like to see tax incentives for community energy and supporter-owned sports clubs and the statutory right to request employee ownership. Employee buy-outs can often be an attractive route for business succession, because they transfer ownership to people with a genuine interest in an enterprise’s long-term success and can increase the likelihood of the enterprise continuing to provide trade and jobs locally.

Those are some of the proposals we would like to see. It is clearer than ever that the principles that we have seen over the last 100 years remain as relevant and vital today, as we face the future challenges of technology and an insecure globalised world, as they were at the time of those great pioneers back in 1844.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Turley Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

And nor are we. It is an absurd suggestion. The principle that taxpayers’ money should not be used to lobby Government is perfectly reasonable and one that most people support.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

A leading board member of the Charity Commission has written an essay calling for the UK to leave the EU. That comes after the Charity Commission tried to clamp down on charities engaging in the EU debate. Is the Minister able to explain why the Charity Commission rule on campaigning appears to be, “Do as I say, not as I do”? I welcomed his clarification that charity voices should and could be heard on the issues that affect them, but it flies in the face of the Charity Commission’s recent gagging clauses. Will the Minister confirm that charities are now allowed to speak out, but only if they agree with him?

[Matthew Hancock]

No.

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Anna Turley Excerpts

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to have this opportunity to make a statement on the report by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee entitled “Appointment of the Commissioner for Public Appointments”, which we published last week. The post of Commissioner for Public Appointments was established in 1995 following the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its first report, the Nolan report. The Nolan report recommended the creation of the post as a means of enhancing public confidence in the public appointments process and the quality of appointments made under it. The role of the Commissioner for Public Appointments is set out in the Public Appointments Order in Council 2015.

Since the post and office of the commissioner were established in 1995, there have been four Commissioners for Public Appointments. From 2011 to 2016, the post of CPA was held jointly with the role of First Civil Service Commissioner by Sir David Normington. However, with Sir David’s departure, the two posts of First Civil Service Commissioner and CPA were advertised separately. That was the result of a recommendation made to Ministers by Sir Gerry Grimstone prior to the publication of his review of public appointments. As indicated by the recruitment advertising for this post, the commissioner will be expected to work with the Government in implementing the Grimstone review’s recommendations. The Grimstone review, however, was published only in March this year.

After two hearings with the Government’s preferred candidate, the right hon. Peter Riddell, and after some discussion, we have given Mr Riddell a qualified endorsement as Commissioner for Public Appointments. He is well known to many in this House as a respected political journalist and commentator. He was appointed a Privy Counsellor for his work on the Gibson inquiry into the possible illegal rendition of UK detainees. He has also been chair of the Hansard Society and, most recently and perhaps relevantly, director of the Institute for Government.

PACAC remains concerned, however, that the changes proposed by the Grimstone review, as interpreted by the Government, alongside other changes, such as the introduction of enlarged ministerial offices—whereby Ministers, instead of the civil service, can themselves make appointments to their private offices—may be leading to an increasing politicisation of senior public appointments. We will report on our inquiry into the Grimstone proposals after the code of practice for public appointments and the new Order in Council have been published.

The proposals are controversial. They propose a significant removal of the powers exercised by the office of the CPA over the public appointments process. Ministers, instead of the CPA, would set the rules by drawing up the new governance code. Ministers could decide to run an appointment process without referral to the CPA. Ministers, not the CPA, could determine the membership of appointment panels, including the independent member. Ministers could include on selection panels an official acting as a Ministers’ representative without the consent of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Ministers would have latitude to interview and appoint someone even if the selection panel had marked him or her below the line.

The new Order in Council and the new code of conduct for public appointments have yet to be published even in draft form. Publication of the Grimstone review was originally expected last year, but it was held back. There was a gap of only three days between the publication of the Grimstone review, along with the Government response, and Mr Riddell being named as the preferred candidate. That left us with no opportunity, by the time of Mr Riddell’s appearance before the Committee on 21 March, to consider the Grimstone review.

We concluded that it would have been inappropriate for us to make a report on the Government’s preferred candidate that could have been regarded as an implicit and unqualified endorsement of the Government’s interpretation of the Grimstone proposals. After our initial evidence session with Mr Riddell before Easter, we therefore issued a call for evidence on the Grimstone review. We took evidence from the outgoing CPA, Sir David Normington, from Sir Gerry Grimstone himself and from my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General prior to concluding our pre-appointment scrutiny of Mr Riddell on 12 April. I am very grateful to the Government for delaying Mr Riddell’s appointment while we completed our pre-appointment scrutiny.

We intend to report on the implications of Sir Gerry Grimstone’s review shortly. We will welcome any further written evidence. The present Committee on Standards in Public Life has warned that this could

“all add up to a public perception of a system which was being operated under increased political patronage. It could also run counter to the intentions to increase transparency and diversity.”

The outgoing CPA, Sir David Normington, has expressed his opposition to the proposals as a reversal of the Nolan reforms of 20 years ago. Sir Gerry Grimstone has made it clear that transparency rather than the direct powers currently held by the commissioner would enable the commissioner to remain a powerful regulator. However, the Minister for the Cabinet Office has made it clear that the CPA would be consulted by Ministers, but the CPA would no longer have the power to direct an independent appointment process, as now.

PACAC will therefore closely monitor how Mr Riddell works with Ministers to implement the Grimstone review’s recommendations, and how he responds to the recommendations that PACAC have yet to make on the Grimstone review. PACAC will underwrite Mr Riddell’s authority and independence as the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and we will make use of our ability to carry out follow-up scrutiny, if necessary, to make sure that any concerns we have are heard. We agree with Sir Gerry Grimstone that the role of the CPA should be robust and authoritative, and should not be undermined.

Furthermore, in the light of the Grimstone review’s proposed changes to the public appointments process and in line with other roles, such as those of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the chairs of the Office for Budget Responsibility and the UK Statistics Authority, PACAC recommends that future appointments of the Commissioner for Public Appointments should be subject to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This will be an additional safeguard, and act as a public reassurance that the independence and status of the Commissioner for Public Appointments is not threatened. We also recommend that a similar procedure should apply to the post of First Civil Service Commissioner. I am very pleased to present this report to Parliament.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee for his report and today’s statement.

Sir David Normington, the outgoing Commissioner for Public Appointments, said that the Government’s proposals put at risk 20 years of progress and risk ushering in

“a return to the days of political and personal patronage”.

Indeed, he said that as the commissioner, he would be contacted once a month by the Prime Minister or other Ministers, asking why party donors, office holders or former MPs had not been shortlisted or recommended for posts.

In the light of those concerns, does the hon. Gentleman share our fear that dismantling the powers of the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments will open the door to political cronies being gifted public service jobs either as a reward for donations or to create an army of political enforcers in the public sector? Rather than appointment being made on merit or according to skills or public service ethos, are not the Government putting themselves at risk of accusations of cash for jobs?

[Mr Jenkin]

I think the danger is not that those things will happen, but that people will say that they may seem to be happening. Curiously, it might make it harder for the Government to put a friend or supporter into a public appointment job if the Minister is more directly involved. The current arrangements were created to protect Ministers.

If Ministers are frustrated that the wrong people are being interviewed, that people are being appointed according to the wrong job specifications or that people with the right skills are not being given an interview, it is up to them to make sure that the job specification for a job is as they think it should be before the recruitment process starts.

I will not defend the public appointments process in total. The Grimstone review has started a much-needed debate about public appointments, but before my Committee and I give a definitive view of Sir Gerry Grimstone’s proposals, we want to consider all the arguments and all the evidence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Turley Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Letwin]

My hon. Friend has been completely tireless in her attempts to ensure that armed forces personnel can vote in the referendum, and rightly so. I can confirm the Prime Minister’s commitment given to her that we will enable all the armed forces to vote. I am happy to tell her that the chief counting officer for the referendum has now directed that postal ballots will be sent to the armed forces between 23 and 27 May to ensure plenty of time for their votes to be counted.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

When the Government introduced new gagging clauses on charities in receipt of Government grants last month, they credited a report published by the think-tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, in which the policy was a key recommendation. Just four months prior to that, the Minister for the Cabinet Office received a £4,000 donation from the chairman of the IEA, Neil Record. That is surely just a coincidence, but in order to avoid any misunderstanding will the Minister, who has said that he is committed to freedom of information, publish all communications between the IEA and his Department as well as all the submissions and advice that he received from the civil service?

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

I did not have any discussions with the IEA on this. It is about ensuring that taxpayers’ money is spent on good causes and the right things, not on lobbying Government. It is right that taxpayers’ money should be spent on the things for which it was intended, not on ensuring that lobbyists can take politicians out for lunch.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Anna Turley Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Disposal of assets—

“The Charity Commission shall ensure that independent charities are not compelled to use or dispose of their assets in a way which is inconsistent with their charitable purposes.”

New clause 3—Power to make representations—

“(1) A charity may undertake political campaigning or political activity in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes.

(2) A charity may campaign to ensure support for, or to oppose, a change in the law, policy or decisions of central government, local authorities or other public bodies.”

New clause 4—Power to hold hearings on fundraising regulation and charity activity—

“(1) The Commission has the power to hold public hearings with representatives from charities, charity trusts and other relevant bodies on fundraising regulation and charity fundraising activities.

(2) Representatives appearing at the public hearings specified in subsection (1) are protected by legal professional privilege.”

This amendment requires the Charity Commission to hold annual hearings on fundraising regulation and the workings of charities and provides participants with the protection of legal professional privilege.

New clause 5—The Charity Commission as primary guarantor of the regulatory system for fundraising—

“(1) Section 69 of the Charities Act 2006 (Reserve power to control fund-raising by charitable institutions), which inserts section 64A into the Charities 1992 Act (Reserve power to control fund-raising by charitable institutions) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) for “Minister” substitute “Charity Commission”.

(3) After subsection (8) insert—

“(9) The Charity Commission shall report annually to the Minister on the exercise of its powers under this section.

(10) On reviewing the annual report or if the Secretary of State considers the Commission is not effectively exercising its function as guarantor of the regulatory system the Minister may himself exercise the powers under this section.””

This amendment makes the Charity Commission the primary regulator of charities fundraising activities, requires the Charity Commission to report annually to the Cabinet Office on its regulation of charitable fundraising, and allows the Government to intervene in this regulation as a last resort.

Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (3)”.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 12, leave subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) The Commission may issue a warning to a charity trustee, a trustee for a charity or a charity in any way it considers appropriate but may not publish a warning to a wider audience.”

Amendment 10, page 1, line 15, at end insert—

‘(2A) If the Commission decides to publish a warning under subsection (2) it must do so in a manner which does not identify the charity, or charity trustee, in relation to which the warning is issued.”

Amendment 11, page 1, line 16, after “give” insert “at least 14 days”.

Amendment 12, page 2, line 6, leave out subsection (b) and insert—

“(b) such advice or guidance that the Commission considers may assist the charity to remedy the conduct which gave rise to the warning, as referred to in (a) above.”

Government amendment 2.

Amendment (a), line 10 at end add—

‘( ) If the Commission publishes notice that a warning has been withdrawn under subsection (2), the notice must state the reasons for the withdrawal.

( ) No record of a warning withdrawn by the Commission should be held on the Register of Charities.”

Government amendment 3.

Amendment 1, in clause 9, page 10, line 2, at end insert—

‘(22) Before this section comes into force, the Secretary of State shall lay a report before Parliament on the impact of the extension of the disqualification framework on—

(a) people with criminal records who are trustees of, or employed by, charities, and

(b) charities which work with, or employ, ex-offenders.

(23) The report shall include, but not be limited to—

(a) an assessment of the number of people employed by charities who will be affected by the extension of the disqualification framework to cover senior management positions,

(b) an assessment of the number of people who are trustees of, or employed by, charities who will be affected by the extension of the list of specified offences for which people will be automatically disqualified from being a trustee of, or a senior manager in, a charity,

(c) an assessment of the impact of the new disqualification framework on former offenders who are seeking, or intend to seek, employment in the charitable sector, including on their recruitment, retention, career prospects and long-term rehabilitation and resettlement,

(d) an assessment of the impact of the new disqualification framework on former offenders who are currently employed in the charitable sector, including on their retention, career prospects and long-term rehabilitation and resettlement,

(e) an assessment of the impact of the new disqualification framework on people with criminal records who are trustees or employees of charities which are partners in, or are contracted by, community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) and its impact on the successful running of those organisations,

(f) an assessment of the effectiveness of the existing waiver process provided for under section 181 of the Charities Act 2011,

(g) an assessment of the impact of the new disqualification framework on the number of applications for waivers to the Charity Commission,

(h) a description of how the working group set up by the Charity Commission on the waiver process will be constituted, how it will be resourced, what timelines it will be working to, its working method and intended outputs, and how it will work in consultation with people with criminal records and charities that work with, or employ, ex-offenders,

(i) a description of the criteria the Charity Commission will adopt in considering applications for waivers, and the weight it will attach to the views of the trustees of the charity or charities concerned,

(j) a description of how the waiver process will operate in relation to prospective candidates for senior management positions in charities, including the timescales for decisions and mechanisms to ensure that ex- offenders do not suffer indirect discrimination as a consequence of delays in assessing applications for waivers while a competitive recruitment process is underway,

(k) an assessment of the impact of the new disqualification framework on the resources provided by the Charity Commission to administer the waiver application process.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before parliament a report on the impact of the extension of the disqualification framework on people with criminal records who are trustees of, or employed by, charities, and on charities which work with, or employ, ex-offenders before the section came into force.

Amendment 13, in clause 10, page 10, line 7, after “person” insert “or persons”.

Government amendment 4.

Amendment 14, page 10, line 35, leave out

“(either generally or in relation to the charities or classes of charity specified or described in the order)”

and insert

“, as defined by the Commission in a specific document to be published after consultation and renewed”.

Amendment 15, page 11, line 33, after “conduct” insert “both relevant and serious”.

Government amendments 5 to 7.

[Anna Turley]

It is a pleasure to speak today on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition about this, my first Bill. The Committee process has been excellent, and I welcome this opportunity to revisit the Bill and talk again about some of the issues that were raised.

The main objective of the legislation is to provide a strong regulatory framework to support the charity sector and its trustees. In particular, it aims to strengthen the Charity Commission’s arm by giving it more powers to regulate charities. That is an important objective, which we support, but we are clear that the right safeguards must be in place. The Charity Commission is the guardian of public trust and confidence in charities. On the whole, it does an excellent job, particularly in the context of the assault on its budget over the past six years. It is important for the integrity of the charitable sector that the commission should have the tools to do its job properly, and for that reason we support many of the Bill’s provisions.

However, as with any regulator, it is vital to ensure that the commission’s powers are subject to appropriate safeguards. Unfortunately, some of new powers for the regulator introduced by the Bill lack such safeguards and therefore leave scope for the commission to overreach itself. That threatens the independence of charities and the integrity and reputation of the commission, and it could fundamentally change the relationship between the commission and the charity sector.

Our concerns are shared by the sector, its advisers and more widely—the Charity Law Association, for example, has said that the new powers in the Bill need to be balanced by appropriate and proportionate safeguards. It points out that the new powers will apply not only in rare cases of deliberate abuse but to all charities and their many hundreds of thousands of well-meaning volunteer trustees.

A group of sector umbrella bodies, including the Directory of Social Change, the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Charity Finance Group, have all expressed serious concerns about the lack of safeguards. The Joint Committee of the House of Lords and House of Commons that scrutinised an early draft of the Bill called for necessary safeguards to be included, and, of course, we pushed for those in Committee.

The Minister may point out, as he did in Committee, that the Charity Commission has a statutory obligation to act proportionately. We acknowledge that, but experience has shown that, sadly, that is not enough. In a recent High Court case involving the commission and the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, the Lord Chief Justice referred to “ludicrous time limits” imposed by the commission in a regulatory situation; he said he could understand why it was felt that the Charity Commission had behaved in an extremely high-handed manner in that case.

The commission should, of course, have the power to do its job, but sensible limits should be imposed on how it exercises its powers. Our amendment would redress the balance.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent speech. I am a trustee of many charities; one of the concerns that those of us who work in the charitable sector have had for a long time is the weakness of the Charity Commission. Usually, its legal department is terrified of a case ending up in the High Court. I support the Bill: we need a strong commission that can do its job as it has not been able to do it for many years.

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is why we support the Bill and the powers it gives to the Charity Commission. My hon. Friend is also right in talking about what is sometimes a lack of clarity and a confusion, which can be costly. We are really keen to get clarity on the grey areas, boundaries and improper balances in the Bill. It is really important that we get those on the record while the Bill has yet to be enacted and before we end up with costly processes in the High Court.

I turn specifically to new clause 1 and amendments 9, 8, 10, 11 and 12, which apply to clause 1, which relates to the Charity Commission’s new power to give warnings.

The Bill introduces a new power for the Charity Commission to issue official warnings to a charity or a charity trustee. The explanatory notes say that the power is intended to be used when the risk of an impact on charitable assets and services is relatively low, but the new power could have a far-reaching impact on charities that receive a warning. The Bill gives the commission complete discretion about publicising a warning. That could have serious reputational implications for the charity involved: the public, the media and funders may well not distinguish between a low-level issue giving rise to a warning and something much more severe. It is important that we consider the issue in the context of the high profile media issues raised recently. After all, official warnings issued by other regulators indicate a serious and high level of concern; under the Bill, the commission can issue a warning on the strength of a low-level breach of trust or just a breach of duty by a charity trustee. Indeed, it is our understanding that it intends to use the warning power in low-level cases.

As all hon. Members know, reputation is paramount for charities and charity trustees. The adverse publicity resulting from a warning could lead to a choking off of donations, grant funding and corporate sponsorships, leading to a closure of services and, potentially, to redundancies. A warning can be used as a trigger for further regulatory action; clause 2 makes a change to the circumstances in which the commission can take significant protective measures in relation to charities so that the failure to remedy an alleged breach of trust or duty specified in a warning is automatically a trigger to more serious action. That seems a startling implication for a power intended to be used in low-level cases and makes it all the more important that there should be safeguards around the exercise of the power.

Our amendments address those concerns in four ways. First, through amendment 9 and 8, they would limit the commission’s scope to publish the warning to a wide audience. The charity and its trustees would receive the warning, but no wider publicity would be involved. The warning would ensure that the charity took the commission’s concerns seriously, but would have no adverse effect on its reputation. If the charity failed to comply with the warning, the commission could take more significant regulatory action at that stage, and that might attract publicity. Low-level concerns, however, would not be publicised, to ensure that the commission’s action was proportionate and did not seriously impact—potentially fatally—a charity for a relatively minor error.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

It has been stated numerous times that the Charity Commission often sees itself as a partner in trying to improve and work with charities. Would not the method that my hon. Friend is describing be one more of partnership, using the expertise of the Charity Commission to improve and tackle the challenges that charities face in the front line? That is a much more collaborative approach, aimed at delivering outcomes for the beneficiaries, rather than a public bust-up, which could damage the Charity Commission, charities as a whole and the individual charity concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. It is clear that when the Charity Commission works in terms of its role of supporting, encouraging and giving guidance to charities, it is extremely effective. Particularly given the pressures on its finances, expecting it to undertake a wide range of enforcement in this manner is potentially quite costly.

Alternatively, amendment 10 would allow the commission to make details of the warning public without referencing the charity, or a charity trustee, by name. This would allow the commission to publish a warning anonymously if it felt that it held important lessons for the wider charitable sector, but without the consequent impact on the charity.

Secondly, under amendment 11 the commission would be obliged to give the charity adequate notice of its intention to issue a warning. The Bill states that

“the Commission must give notice”,

but there is no specified notice period. That means that there is nothing to stop the commission giving less than 24 hours’ notice of its intention to issue a warning, which would give the trustees, who are very often hard-pressed volunteers, and any charity staff almost no time to respond. This is a serious risk. In the High Court judgment that I mentioned, it is understood that charity trustees were given less than 24 hours to respond to the commission, prompting the Lord Chief Justice, as I said, to describe the time limits as “ludicrous”.

This concern has already been raised by the Joint Committee that reviewed an earlier draft of the Bill. It recommended that a reasonable minimum notice period to make representations on a draft warning should be made clear in the Bill. The Government’s response to the Joint Committee’s report accepted that a recipient should have the opportunity to make representations on the warning for the commission to consider before it is published. In our view, this requires the inclusion of a minimum notice period in the Bill, and that is what our amendment seeks to achieve. The Government may argue that there could be circumstances where the commission has such serious concerns that it must act swiftly and without notice. In such cases, the commission should exercise some of its other regulatory powers designed for more serious concerns, some of which may be used without advance notice. We have been told that the warning power is not intended for such serious cases.

We also propose a small amendment, amendment (a), to Government amendment 2 on the proposed power to withdraw or vary a warning. Our amendment is designed to help reduce any reputational damage to a charity that might result from the inappropriate issuing of a warning. It is absolutely right and fair that if the warning was subsequently found to have been incorrectly given, then it should be publicly revoked and any damage sought to be undone.

Thirdly, amendment 12 seeks to ensure that it is absolutely clear in the Bill that the commission will not be able to use its warning power to direct charities. It is not appropriate for the commission to be able to direct charity trustees on how to act. It is very clear from the Charities Act 2011 that the commission is not able to act as a charity trustee except for very limited exceptions. In a small range of circumstances, the commission can issue statutory directions to charities, but these are rightly subject to very strict safeguards. It seems that the Government agree with this principle. In responding to the consultation on the extension of the Charity Commission’s power that was a precursor to the Bill, the Government specifically decided not to extend the commission’s powers to make directions outside a formal statutory inquiry. If the commission could use the warning power as a way to direct charities, it would be able to give directions via the back door. This is a fundamental shift in the delicate balance of the relationship between the commission and charities, and it should not be allowed.

We would welcome some clarification from the Minister on this point, as there seems to be confusion in the sector about it. We understand that the commission does not regard the warning power as giving it the power to direct charities, yet the explanatory notes to the Bill imply the opposite, stating:

“Where the Commission considers it disproportionate and unnecessary to open an inquiry purely for the purpose of making a direction, issuing an official warning could be an alternative way of making it clear to a charity that they should take action.”

Confusion over a similar issue gave rise to the High Court case that I mentioned, prompting the Lord Chief Justice’s comments about the commission’s actions. Our amendment makes it clear that while a warning can be used to give advice or guidance to a charity—which can often be very positive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) said—in order to remedy the conduct that gave rise to it, it absolutely cannot be used to direct the trustees to take action.

New clause 1 would allow for the issuing of a warning to be appealed to the Charity Tribunal. I have already explained the potentially significant consequences that the issuing of a warning has for a charity. The Charity Tribunal is a low-cost forum that was established in the Charities Act 2006 especially for charities wishing to challenge the commission. In the absence of an express right of appeal, charities affected by a warning are able to challenge it only via judicial review. Judicial review is expensive, complicated, and time-consuming. It is a completely inappropriate option for a mechanism that is intended to address low-level non-compliance. The Charity Tribunal was introduced precisely so that charities would not have to rely on costly judicial review proceedings to challenge the commission’s decision making. There is no good reason, and I am afraid none was forthcoming in Committee, as to why it should not be possible to appeal an official warning to the Charity Tribunal. It is illogical that the exercise of the warning power should be more difficult to challenge than the exercise of the commission’s more extensive regulatory powers, which can be appealed to the Charity Tribunal.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It might be helpful if I clarify one of points that the hon. Lady raised about the power to direct. An official warning is not the same as a direction power. I am aware of the potential confusion regarding the explanatory notes that she mentioned. If it is helpful to her, I would be happy to ensure that the explanatory notes are updated to make it absolutely clear that the warning power cannot be used to direct charities.

[Anna Turley]

That is very helpful indeed. I really appreciate the Minister being so quick and forthcoming with his clarity on that, which will give the sector a lot of reassurance.

I now move on to our new clauses 2 and 3. New clause 2 seeks to replace a clause that was put into the Bill during its passage through the other place but removed in Committee. I pay tribute to our noble Friends in the other place who successfully added the clause to the Bill. As with so much legislation at the moment, we are finding them to be great defenders of social justice and fairness.

New clause 2 would support trustees in carrying out their existing duties by ensuring that they can adhere to their charitable aims and objectives, and it would protect them from being compelled to undertake an action at odds with their charitable purposes. As we have always made clear, especially in Committee, the provision is particularly relevant to housing. It aims to protect charities and housing associations if the Government mandates them to sell their charitable property under the right-to-buy proposals.

Labour Members want those who desire to be homeowners to achieve their aspiration. While the number of homeowners has fallen by more than 200,000 under this Government, the number rose by more than 1 million under Labour between 1997 and 2010. I want to be clear that we support people’s aspiration to own their own home.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I agree with what my hon. Friend is saying, but the level of owner-occupation is declining because house prices have risen way beyond the ability of most people to afford them. Is not the real problem the need to have decent social rented housing, and should we not keep all existing social housing in the public sector to make sure we can house people properly?

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We know that home ownership is falling and, as he says, the real crisis is in social housing. The purpose of new clause 2 is to protect what social housing we have and maintain it in the hands of the charitable sector and housing associations that own it, as well as to ensure that it is used for its intended purpose, not sold off for profit.

The problem our new clause seeks to address is that of compulsion. This is about the fundamental rights and the position in law of housing associations and charities. The independence of the charitable sector from Government is an important strength of British civic society, and one that must be cherished. We do not support the right of a Government to direct a charity, against its independent will and contrary to its charitable purposes, to dispose of its assets according to the Government’s desire. That is an infringement of the independence of charity, community and voluntary sector organisations. For many housing associations, it goes against the very grain of their founding purpose.

Housing associations, many of which are charities, provide 2.5 million homes for 5 million people on affordable rents. Many enable vulnerable people, or those with disabilities or care needs, to live independently. Other properties are for shared ownership, to help those on lower incomes to buy their homes. These aims are in the charitable DNA of housing associations and are not for the Government to tamper with.

The unintended consequences of the right-to-buy proposals for housing associations could undermine charity law that goes back centuries. In essence, the proposals will allow the assets of independent charities, and even the bequests of individuals or philanthropists—for example, the Peabody Trust, which has built and bequeathed housing to ameliorate the conditions of the poor and needy—to be seized. Housing associations currently build 45,000 homes a year. Ideally, they would like to build 120,000 homes. That aim may be undermined if they are forced to sell off their stock.

Housing associations often lever in private finance on the basis of assets they already own in order to meet their wider charitable objectives and to manage their assets effectively. Right to buy will force housing associations to sell properties. It will give them less control over such decisions. Importantly, in relation to this Bill, it will make it more difficult for them to meet their charitable purposes.

Furthermore, any diminution of the housing stock could harm housing associations’ borrowing powers. The National Housing Federation has said:

“With a nation in the throes of a housing crisis, it is key that housing associations are in full control of the assets against which they borrow to build homes.”

Labour, as well as many housing associations around the country, has always said that the extension of right to buy to housing associations, through the Housing and Planning Bill, is unworkable and wrong. It will lead to a severe and irreversible loss of affordable homes at a time when they can never have been more needed, because the Government have no genuine plan for one-for-one, like-for-like replacement. Historically, only one in 10 homes sold have been replaced under the right to buy.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Even those who support the sale of council houses and of housing association properties say that if the subsidy came directly from the Treasury, that would be very different from making housing associations and local authorities pay for the subsidy out of their assets.

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It has been apparent throughout the proceedings on the Housing and Planning Bill that there is a black hole in the plans to fund the whole proposal.

There are currently 2 million people on waiting lists due to the dearth of homes on affordable rents for low earners. Our new clause 2, which protects housing associations from being compelled to sell off homes, would prevent the further reduction in the supply of affordable social housing. Too often, history has shown that right-to-buy homes are resold. Many homes are rapidly rented out by private landlords at the full market rent, which serves to drive up market prices and increase poverty through higher housing costs, as well as reducing the housing stock available on affordable rents. All of that goes against the charitable objectives of most housing associations.

In summary, we are concerned that the Government want to interfere with the duties of charity trustees to put their beneficiaries first and to comply with their fundamental charitable purposes in how they manage their assets. Housing associations can already partake of right-to-buy options for their tenants where that accords with their charitable objectives. The problem arises where that conflicts with their objectives and trustees’ duties risk being overridden by the Government, which is simply not acceptable. That is what the new clause seeks to prevent.

New clause 3 would enshrine in legislation the right of charities to undertake political campaigning activity. We are clear that this is a direct attempt to challenge the unfair and poorly applied Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, commonly known as the gagging Act. Campaigning is an important part of democracy and civil society. One of the fundamental principles of a thriving and healthy democracy is that individuals and organisations can speak out on the issues they care about.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

On new clause 2, the hon. Lady made a case about charities’ ancient rights. She will be well aware that the ancient rules, going back 400 years to the time of James I, were very much against charities involving themselves in politics. I accept that there have been changes in charity law more recently, but it seems rather perverse that she prays in aid ancient charitable rights in relation to new clause 2, but is happy to ride roughshod over them in new clause 3.

[Anna Turley]

On the contrary, it was the gagging Act that rode roughshod over the historic rights of the charity sector to defend and campaign on the causes that charities fundamentally exist to tackle.

[Peter Kyle]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly powerful point. This is about freedom of speech for everyone—every citizen and every organisation in this country—but it is also about making sure that the disempowered, both individuals and communities who lack a voice, have advocates that can speak in as unencumbered a way as is humanly possible and with the ferocity that those in our society who lack a voice deserve.

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He pays tribute to the charities that do some of the most important work with the most excluded. Such people need a voice and are often those who suffer the consequences of bad policy making in this place. Charities often have to pick up the pieces of such policy making.

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

I am slightly mystified by some of the comments about so-called political activity. We are talking about basic advocacy. We only have to go back to the end of the first world war to see the Royal British Legion campaigning for jobs for veterans and so on. We are not talking about party political campaigning. That is what the voluntary sector objected to in the 2014 Act.

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As she has ably demonstrated, charities have a long-established role in educating, informing the public, campaigning and securing positive social change throughout our history.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Use of such terms can seem a little bizarre, but does the hon. Lady not agree that charities can already make representations, including to us as Members of this place? One of the big things about charities is that they have a special ethos that drives their work and activities. I therefore cannot understand why we should support new clause 3.

[Anna Turley]

It is quite clear that the charitable sector felt that the 2014 Act prevented them from being able to pursue exactly the aims that the hon. Lady sets out. We in this House share many things in common with the charitable sector, not least the effort to build a better society, so it is absolutely right that we should work together in partnership to build better policy making and to shape the kind of society that she cares about. Our new clause has not come out of thin air. We are reacting to a very bad piece of legislation, about which the sector feels extremely strongly. We want to continue to protect the sector.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Part of the problem is the use of the word “political”. Before the introduction of the gagging law, there was no provision for charities to engage in party political activity—activity in favour of a political party—and CC9, the Charity Commission’s guidance document on campaigning for charities, is clear about that. What problem does my hon. Friend think the Government were trying to solve when they introduced the gagging law? I do not think there was any such problem.

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think the problem was that the Government felt challenged. From the outside, they were happy to talk about being the most open and transparent Government ever, but once in power, they pulled up the drawbridge and were nervous about the challenge they faced from the sector on key issues such as badgers and the bedroom tax.

[Mark Field]

No one minds scrutiny. We are very happy to have bodies that want to engage in political lobbying, but they should not be charities. Charities have certain benefits, including tax benefits. Bodies that wish to be party political, biased advocates are perfectly able to be so if they are companies or other corporations. The point is that the charitable sector brings with it a range of benefits, not least in terms of taxation, that should not be abused for party political purposes.

[Anna Turley]

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that for a charity that is picking up the pieces left by diseases such as cancer or heart failure, it is a better use of taxpayers’ money to lobby for better investment in prevention and research and development?

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I am sorry to relive arguments that were heard in Committee, but the only example that was given to the Committee of the so-called chilling effect or of a charity being prohibited from carrying out activities by the so-called gagging law was that of the Badger Trust. That organisation was explicitly party political. The chief executive officer, Dominic Dyer, sent out an email using the charity’s email system to all its members, who may have had any party political affiliation or none, saying that he had contributed to the Labour party’s rural manifesto, that it was wonderful, that they should turn up at the launch of the manifesto, that they should take part in an anti-Cameron rally and, presumably, that they should vote Labour. The hon. Lady said that she supported that kind of behaviour, which was illegal. Surely Members from all parts of the House can agree that such behaviour is wrong. New clause 3 should be defeated because it would give the green light to that sort of extremely negative behaviour.

[Anna Turley]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has a problem with negative behaviour—I am afraid that it is a fact of life. Having looked at the evidence from the Charity Commission on that case, I still struggle to see what was wrong with the situation. I am very happy to continue that conversation with the Charity Commission.

The hon. Gentleman says that that was the only evidence given. More than 160 charities signed a letter to the Government ahead of the general election saying that the legislation should be scrapped, including Save the Children, the Salvation Army, Oxfam, Greenpeace, Age UK and Amnesty International. The charity sector is up in arms.

[Susan Elan Jones]

Surely the big problem that people had was that they did not like the idea of dodgy lobbyists giving money to dodgy politicians. It was not about victimising groups such as the Salvation Army. The hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) says that it was just the Badger Trust that was affected. If he had heard what the Countryside Alliance said at the all-party parliamentary group on civil society and volunteering about what it thought of the gagging Act, he would accept that a wide variety of groups are affected.

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the strength of feeling in the sector.

[Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). Does the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) agree that the gagging Act would have limited even the calls for the creation of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, which were led by the Church of Scotland, which is a registered charity in Scotland? Without new clause 3, it will not be possible to have an impact like the one that the Scottish Parliament has had on the so-called unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom.

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and I thank him for that contribution. I will make some progress, because I am conscious that many Members want to speak.

Not only should charities have the right to campaign, but they are often best placed to provide important insights that can inform and improve policy making. They are often the ones on the frontline who see the gaps in provision, the duplication of services and the inefficiency and waste, and who spot the best ways of solving or, better still, preventing problems. Many charities can make a bigger impact with their limited resources through campaigning than through service delivery alone.

Campaigning often saves taxpayers money in the long term, as issues can be addressed at their roots, rather than in the aftermath, which can be costly. For example, as I just mentioned, many charities provide fantastic care for patients with long-term conditions such as cancer, but is it not better for them to push for more effective treatment, more awareness of the symptoms and more support for diagnosis through campaigning? So much of that happens as a result of good policy making by politicians. That is why charities must seek to shape it.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

I fear that under new clause 3, the hard-earned money that people donate to charities would be spent on political campaigning, rather than the initial cause to which they donate, such as true medical research. That is why the new clause is flawed.

[Anna Turley]

I am surprised that the hon. Lady presumes to know what people want to happen when they donate money. Many people who donate money to large charities such as Crisis and Shelter are very aware of the high-profile public campaigning that they do and of the pressure that they put on all of us in this House. That is to be commended. Many people support the powerful voice that such charities have in the community.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

To reinforce that point, many people support and donate to such charities precisely because they campaign.

[Anna Turley]

I completely share my hon. Friend’s view and am grateful for his supportive intervention.

Charities themselves have set out their concerns, including the fact that the scope of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 is very broad. They are concerned that the legitimate day-to-day activities of charities and voluntary organisations that engage with public policy will be caught by the rules and that a number of regulated charities, voluntary organisations and other groups will be substantially affected. They feel that the Act is incredibly complex and unclear, and that it will be difficult for charities and other voluntary groups to understand whether any of their activities will be caught, giving rise to the risk that campaigning activity will be discouraged.

Charities also feel that the 2014 Act gives substantial discretion to the Electoral Commission, creating an unnecessary and burdensome regulatory regime and possibly leaving charities, voluntary organisations and the Electoral Commission open to legal challenge. The legal opinion provided to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations by election law experts suggested that the rules were so complex and unclear that they were

“likely to have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, putting small organisations and their trustees and directors in fear of criminal penalty if they speak out on matters of public interest and concern”.

The 2014 Act stopped charities campaigning—they say so themselves—and caused unnecessary cost and confusion, according to a report by the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, which looked at its effect on last year’s general election. Drawing on evidence from UK charities and campaign groups, the commission found that charities were faced with confusion about

“the ambiguity of the definition of regulated activity.”

The commission states that as a result of that,

“many activities aimed at raising awareness and generating discussion ahead of the election have not taken place.”

A representative of the World Wide Fund for Nature told the commission:

“I think the Act has created an atmosphere of caution within parts of our sector. It has also wasted time in terms of analysis of it, explaining it to Trustees, staff etc. It is not…a piece of legislation we need.”

Greenpeace told the commission:

“We were meant to be participating in a huge cross-NGO campaign, but all apart from a couple of the organisations ended up not campaigning during the general election period leaving us with not enough partners to run the campaign.”

The Salvation Army stated:

“As we are not traditionally a campaigning charity we were not in danger of exceeding the top limit. However, we were wary of supporting causes that could be considered coalition campaigning because we felt the administrative cost would be excessive and we couldn’t control the level of spending.”

The Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement also found that voluntary groups undertaking Government contracts regularly faced threats to remain silent on key Government policies. Many neglect to speak out on issues that are plaguing society, for fear of losing funding or inviting other unwelcome sanctions.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anna Turley]

I am afraid that I am nearly at the end of my speech, so I will finish.

The lobbying legislation looks to many in the sector too much like another deliberate and shameless act by a Government who are too scared to debate their record or to be open to scrutiny and challenge. The health of our democracy depends on people’s right to campaign on the issues they care about. The 2014 Act was an attack on our democracy. It limits the rights of charities to fight for important causes. It has left expert organisations that have a vital contribution to make to public debate unsure whether they are allowed to speak out. We seek to protect the right of charities to have a loud and respected voice in our democracy. I commend new clause 3 to the House.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) on her first speech from the Dispatch Box in the Report stage of a Bill. She gave a thorough explanation of her case on behalf of the official Opposition, although I am not entirely sure that I agreed with all of it. No doubt she gave it a lot of thought. She certainly gave us the benefit of her views.

I will not follow the hon. Lady up and down the badger setts of England and Wales, if that is all right with her, but I will speak to amendment 1, which stands in my name. I will do so, with the greatest of respect, in a slightly less aggressive way than her, although there is nothing wrong with aggression when one has something decent to say. I must declare an interest, as is indicated on the Order Paper, because I am a patron of Unlock, the charity that seeks to help people with convictions, and a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust. Both positions are unpaid.

I became interested in prison issues, the rehabilitation of offenders and so on when the Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, appointed me in the middle of the last decade as shadow Minister with responsibility for prisons and probation. As a consequence of that appointment, I visited about 65 of the 140 or so prisons, young offender institutions and secure training units throughout England and Wales. It became apparent to me—it was not a new idea, in that others had discovered it previously—that one of the things that contributes to the high levels of reoffending among those people who have been sent to prison and come out again, particularly among youngsters, is that they do not have a job or somewhere settled to stay, and that they have, to put it loosely, relationship problems. If we can do something to help people to form strong, stable relationships with families, partners or others, and if we can find them somewhere stable to stay and live, and if we can help them to get training or work, the chances that they will reoffend and go back to prison are very much reduced.

As a consequence of the voyage of discovery that I went on from 2005 or so until I was appointed shadow Attorney-General in 2009, I wrote a paper called “Prisons with a Purpose”. I hope that the Secretary of State for Justice—I see his Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), sitting in his place to my left—is picking up many of the ideas that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) pushed forward in that period of opposition.

I suppose it is not a surprise that I have become attached to the Prison Reform Trust and to Unlock, but in speaking to my amendment 1, which is long—it is set out on page 5 of the amendment paper—I invite the Government to have a little think about the disqualification or waiver procedure that applies to people with criminal records, either in so far as they may be trustees of charities that have an interest in looking after ex-offenders, or in so far as they may be employees of those charities.

I hope that the framework of the amendment is clear in itself but, if I may—I will be as quick as I can because I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and other right hon. and hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker—I hope he and the House will forgive me if I take a little time in setting out what I intend to do. I should confess at the outset that I am very grateful to the Prison Reform Trust in assisting me in preparing for today’s debate.

The purpose of my amendment is to require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, before clause 9 comes into force, a report on the impact of the extension of the disqualification framework on people with criminal records who are trustees of, or who are employed by, charities that work with or employ ex-offenders. I intend to urge the Government to provide us with further clarification of the impact of the extension of the disqualification framework on people with criminal records and charities that work with or employ ex-offenders. The amendment also provides an opportunity for the Minister to outline in more detail how he and his Department intend to conduct the review of the waiver process to ensure that people with criminal records who are existing employees or charitable trustees, or who are seeking or intend to seek employment or a trusteeship in a charity, are not unfairly discriminated against.

Clause 9 and the policy behind it are entirely worthy and understandable. We clearly do not want people who are engaged in terrorism to be using charities to move money around or to hide their outrageous behaviour; that is not controversial, but one problem might be the unintended consequence of the clause on people whom the Government may not want to impact. One has only to read out clause 9(5) to realise that someone who comes within

“Part 1 of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc Act 2010…or…the Al-Qaida (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011”

is not someone whom we want to be involved in charities. That is not a problem, but I am concerned about the unintended consequence of that perfectly understandable and worthwhile clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wilson]

I am sure the noble Lords along the corridor will have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend. I hope the Bill will not be altered further as a result of his very strong words.

[Anna Turley]

To take up that point, the right to buy affects charities, and we are debating charities legislation. The right to buy affects the ability of housing associations to control their assets, which is a fundamental change to the balance of the relationship between their role and the Government’s ability to tell them what to do. That is why we have debated it today.

[Mr Wilson]

The Opposition are obviously entitled to propose whatever amendments they want as long as they are in order, but the problem is not just that new clause 2 is completely unnecessary; it would also be damaging, although I am sure that that was not the hon. Lady’s intention.

Many of the rules that apply to charities’ investments in, and their disposal of, assets, derive from case law that has been built up over hundreds of years. Proponents of the new clause argue that it reflects the existing case law, but I simply do not accept that. A simple statutory provision such as the new clause cannot hope to reflect the accumulated detail of case law derived from many hundreds of judgments.

Case law already requires charities to use and dispose of their assets in a way that supports the delivery of their charitable purposes. That provides flexibility for certain circumstances that a statutory provision cannot provide. For example, how would the new clause affect compulsory purchase orders in relation to charity land? How would it affect the existing rights of more than 1.4 million housing association tenants under the preserved right to buy or the right to acquire? How would it affect the exercise of Charity Commission powers such as its power to direct charity property in the course of a statutory inquiry? There are simply too many questions about the measure to which we have not had satisfactory answers either this afternoon or during the course of the Bill’s proceedings.

New clause 2 would give the Charity Commission a new and very broad role in policing the use and disposal of charity assets. That is inconsistent with our current aim of helping the commission to focus on its core regulatory activities.

New clause 3, which is also in the hon. Lady’s name, is at best unnecessary and at worst damaging. Charity law already sets out clear rules on what charities can and cannot do in relation to campaigning and political activity. I explained those in detail in Committee and do not propose to do so again today. New clause 3 might seek to reflect existing law, but it does not. In a similar way to new clause 2, new clause 3 attempts to include in a statutory provision the existing case law. That seriously risks changing the boundaries of what is permitted.

New clause 3 would allow charities to undertake political campaigning or political activity, but does not define what that means.

Would it, for example, allow partisan political campaigning? If that were the case, it would represent a real shift in the law and I would strongly object to that. In particular, I think the public would be very surprised and disappointed to see charities taking part and campaigning on a party political basis. Existing case law does not allow charities to engage in political campaigning to such an extent that it calls into question whether in fact they are a charity or, rather, a political campaigning organisation. Again, it is not clear to me that new clause 3 would incorporate that crucial limitation, potentially opening up charitable status to organisations with a political purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wilson]

The representatives for Scotland were at the fundraising summit recently. This is a devolved matter, and it is up to them what rules they set for Scotland. They do not have to follow; this is an England and Wales Bill, which does not affect Scotland. It is therefore up to the Scottish regulator how they wish to proceed.

I maintain that it is important to keep a clear division between statutory and self-regulatory powers to ensure better regulation of fundraising. The best way to achieve that is to support the new fundraising regulator and, if it should fail, make a decisive and clear move to statutory regulation. Should self-regulation fail, the Government will not hesitate to intervene, which could include tasking the Charity Commission with the regulation of fundraising. However, we think it is too soon to commit the Charity Commission to an enhanced statutory role in fundraising, so I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex will understand why I do not support his new clauses 4 and 5.

Let me turn finally to Government amendments 6 and 7. It would not be fair to ask the taxpayer to carry the cost of fundraising regulation if it is the result of a failure by charities to protect the public from their own poor practices. Government amendments 6 and 7 would therefore enable the fundraising regulator or the Charity Commission to charge fees to those it regulates for that purpose. Many of the charities signed up to and paying for the old system of self-regulation were those that followed best practice, and there was a problem of free riders. To guard against that risk, the Etherington review suggested that any charity with fundraising expenditure beyond a certain level should be subject to a levy, requiring the large and medium-sized fundraising charities to pay for regulation.

Should the Government need to compel charities to register with the charity fundraising regulator, it is important that the fundraising regulator is able to levy fees for registration. That is exactly what amendment 6 would enable. Government amendment 7 deals with fees, should the reserve power be exercised for the Charity Commission to regulate fundraising. It would ensure that regulations could provide for the Charity Commission to charge fees across the range of bodies that it would regulate as the fundraising regulator.

I hope my explanations suffice to convince hon. Members that these amendments are an important part of the backstop to self-regulation and will help to ensure the effective regulation of fundraising in future, but I would of course be happy to provide more detailed responses. The main point is that I hope that these amendments are not needed and that charities will support the new, tougher self-regulatory system being established under the leadership of my noble Friend Lord Grade of Yarmouth. I commend these Government amendments to the House.

[Anna Turley]

For the sake of colleagues, I will be brief. I thank everybody for their contributions this afternoon. There is a wealth of experience from the charity sector in the Chamber, which has added a richness to the progress of the Bill.

Let me turn straight to new clause 1. Although I do not share the Minister’s view that judicial review will be more cost-effective—that may be the case for the Charity Commission, but perhaps not for charities that are appealing, many of which will not be able to afford to go to judicial review—I am willing to work with the Charity Commission, the sector and the Government to monitor the use of warnings outside of primary legislation. Therefore, I do not wish to press new clause 1 to a vote, although I wish to test the House on new clause 3 and amendment 8, because I do not feel our concerns have been met on either issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Power to make representations

“(1) A charity may undertake political campaigning or political activity in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes.

(2) A charity may campaign to ensure support for, or to oppose, a change in the law, policy or decisions of central government, local authorities or other public bodies.”—(Anna Turley.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

It has been an absolute privilege to serve on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition on the consideration of this Bill. I pay tribute to all the civil servants and Clerks of the House who have worked so hard on drafting it. I thank all the members of the Public Bill Committee, who gave up so much time to scrutinise the Bill line by line in a constructive and positive way that did the House great credit. I thank the Minister and his team for the open and co-operative approach they have taken to working with us, disappointed as I am—although not surprised, as the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) pointed out—that none of our amendments were accepted.

I want to place on the record my thanks to the Minister for Civil Society, which I did not have time to do on Report, for clarifying a number of points. He said that the Charity Commission is looking at the likelihood that it will give 14 days’ notice in most circumstances when issuing a warning. That was an extremely helpful clarification. It was also helpful to hear him clarify that the Charity Commission does not see itself as having a power to direct as a result of the warning. It was important to hear that it intends to notify the charity of the reasons why a warning has been withdrawn, which will allow the public record to be set straight. I was grateful for the clarification he gave on those issues.

I thank all Members who have debated the Bill both here and in the other place, in particular Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town. As ever, our noble Friends did sterling work and the Bill is all the better for their experience and expertise. Many Members of both Houses have brought a great deal of experience and knowledge of the charity sector and, as we found out today, its history in Elizabethan law to our debates, which is greatly to be commended.

Finally, I thank those whom the Bill is for: the millions of people in this country who give up their time, week in, week out, to volunteer, fundraise, donate and support in many other ways Britain’s fantastic charitable and voluntary sector. Britain is the most generous developed country in the world and we should be proud of the extraordinary things that are done by extraordinary people in the sector every single day.

There is no doubt that the charity sector has been through a rocky period in the past year. Alongside the ever-shrinking funding from central and local government, the ever-growing demand for the services and support that charities provide, and the ever-increasing public scrutiny, there has been a series of high-profile and deeply damaging cases that, although caused by the actions of a small minority, have had significant repercussions for the sector as a whole.

The sector has taken swift and positive action to respond to those cases, but it is right that, as parliamentarians, we do our bit to ensure that charities have the legislative and regulatory framework they need to enable them to fulfil their charitable objectives, and to maintain their integrity and the strong public support they enjoy. That is what the Bill seeks to do, and why the Opposition have supported it throughout its journey.

It is vital that we get the framework right and that the powers in the Bill serve to support and empower charities to thrive and flourish, and not to stifle or oppress. Charities are fiercely and proudly independent, and rightly so. They do vital work. They work with many of the most vulnerable and challenging people. Many work in the most dangerous places. Charities have to be able to take risks, innovate, shape new thinking and challenge prejudice. They must be able to find new answers to some of the biggest challenges we face in the world, when politicians too often fall short. Regulating such a sector is no easy feat. Getting the balance of regulation right is therefore critical if we are not to damage all that is good about the sector.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Opposition have raised a number of concerns. Although our amendments have not been taken up, we will continue to scrutinise and work with the Government to monitor them closely. There are four aspects I want to set out on Third Reading. Our concerns have not diminished, and we will continue to monitor progress.

First, on the new powers afforded to the Charity Commission, we have tried throughout the passage of the Bill to gain concessions on the new and fairly broad power for the commission to give warnings to charities. As the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, there is a danger of self-fulfilling bureaucracies. When we put that together with reduced budgets, there is a big onus on the commission to deliver in an ever more challenging environment. Throughout the debate, the Minister has insisted that the commission’s new powers will be used proportionately. We believe that that places a substantial burden of judgment on the commission in the absence of achieving more substantial safeguards in the Bill. We hope he will be proved correct.

Warnings that are meant to deal with low-level issues could, particularly when published, have a significant effect in choking off donations, funding and sponsorship. The reputational damage to a charity could be significant or even terminal. We would have liked a right to appeal a warning through the charities tribunal. We would also have liked to prevent warnings from being published or for the charity not to be identified if the details are published. I was grateful to the Minister for his clarification that the Charity Commission will not be able to direct a charity on the back of a warning. That would have been a significant shift in the relationship and in the independence of charities. We will watch the use of those warnings with care as the powers are implemented.

Secondly, it is important to get the powers relating to the charity trustees right. We were pleased to see the amendment in the Lords that expanded the restrictions on charity positions to those on the sex offenders register but, like the right hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), the Opposition have concerns—we raised them in Committee—that the detail has not been sufficiently worked through as regards charities that work in the criminal justice system, and that work closely with current and ex-offenders for the purposes of their charitable aims. I welcome the Minister’s pledge to work closely to see that through.

On the fundraising powers, we believe the sector has made great strides in relation to the recommendations in the Etherington review, which we welcomed. The legislation supports that progress with improved reporting and monitoring while maintaining the self-regulation of the sector. It is absolutely right that people’s privacy is respected, that unreasonably persistent approaches are challenged, that people are not placed under undue pressure, and that vulnerable people are protected. The Bill sets standards for all of those things. We will watch that space carefully to see whether the back-up powers the Minister added to the Bill, which we support, will be required. We hope they are not.

Finally, we have tried unsuccessfully to tackle the measures on the freedom to campaign during the passage of the Bill. The Minister and I will not see eye to eye on this. As was shown by the vote today, the Opposition remain committed to the principle that the right of charities to campaign and influence the political process is a vital part of a healthy democracy and integral to the concept of civil society. As we have discussed today, charities are in the best place to identify problems in public policy, because they are often the ones picking up the pieces of political policy failures. They see the waste and the inefficiency, and they see the opportunity to prevent problems. They can achieve their charitable aims more successfully if they can help to shape the decisions that affect the people and the communities they support.

I am afraid we see before us an illiberal Government who are scared to debate their record or be open to scrutiny and challenge; a Government who have railroaded important proposals, such as tax credit changes, fracking and student grants through Parliament without proper debate; a Government who change child poverty measures and scrap targets they know they will not reach; a Government who see the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as an irritant and the Human Rights Act 1998 as an inconvenience; a Government who refuse to publish Cabinet Office papers for the first time in 50 years; and a Government who have no problem with millions of people dropping off the electoral register.

Charities are but the latest victims of a Government who ride roughshod over the legitimate views and voices of civil society. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 was part of this fundamentally illiberal approach and a deliberate attempt to gag charities by a Government fearful of public scrutiny and accountability. It is a shame the Government did not use the opportunity we gave them today to put right that wrong.

On all those areas and many more, we will continue to hold the Government to account. We will watch the implementation of the Bill carefully, in particular the balance of power between charities and the commission. Fundamentally, we believe the Bill provides a good regulatory framework for the charitable sector, which, if used well, will enable charities in Britain not just to survive in this most challenging of times, but hopefully flourish.

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

Anna Turley Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I second the Minister’s comments and congratulate you, Mr Hamilton? Yours is an extremely well deserved appointment and we look forward to seeing the wealth of experience you bring to the role. It is not before time, so many congratulations. I would also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central, who is not with us but also received an appointment today. There have been some very good moves all round.

We support the Government’s new clause, which seeks to reserve powers to control charity fundraising. It could require mandatory registration in compliance with a specified fundraising regulator, or for fundraising regulation to be carried out by the Charity Commission.

Before going into more detail on why we support the new clause, I want to refer to the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove. The strength of the Bill, and one of the main reasons for our support, is that it is important for charities to have the support, the regulatory framework and everything they need to ensure they are abiding by the highest standards.

We also think that there are many lessons to be learned from the sorry Kids Company saga. I was pleased to hear the Minister commit to conveying strongly the message from the investigations underway. We look forward to seeing the outcome of those investigations and to working with the Government to ensure that those standards are upheld within Government as much as within the sector.

Returning to the new clause, the Institute of Fundraising, the professional membership body for UK fundraising, and the Public Fundraising Association, the membership body for charities and agencies that carry out face-to-face direct debit fundraising, are in the process of merging to form a single professional body across the sector in the light of the Etherington review. Both say that they understand the reasons for amending the Bill to introduce these reserve powers and do not object in principle to their introduction. They hope, as do we, that ultimately the reserve powers will not be needed, and that the new self-regulatory structures will be effective. They commit to working to support the new system of stronger self-regulation to help ensure its success without the need for the reserve powers to be used. I welcome their positive commitment to that.

As we said in the previous sitting, we believe that the sector takes its responsibility in this field very seriously and will strive to reach the high standards set out in the Etherington review, which we welcomed. Standards have fallen short with some recent fundraising practices. I agree with the Minister that those practices were restricted to a small minority but had a substantial and disproportionate effect on public perception of the sector. When that does happen, it is important to ensure that charities and the bodies charged with regulation can act swiftly and effectively to restore public trust.

We believe that state regulation should be a last resort when self-regulation has failed, but these powers give self-regulation the opportunity to succeed, while ensuring that there is proper back-up should the new arrangements fail to deliver satisfactorily. We look forward to working with the Government on reviewing the steps that the sector takes to fulfil these commitments. Like the Government, we hope that the powers will not need to be invoked, but it is important, when tackling these issues, that we have backbone and teeth with such powers.

If the Minister had not indicated on Second Reading that he was going to amend the Bill in this way, we would certainly have put down an amendment, because we support the need for these measures. We welcome them, support them and look forward to working with the Minister to protect the integrity of charity fundraising.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 7 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Power to make representations

‘(1) A charity may undertake political campaigning or political activity in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes.

(2) A charity may campaign to ensure support for, or to oppose, a change in the law, policy or decisions of central government, local authorities or other public bodies.’.—(Anna Turley.)

This New Clause would enshrine in legislation the right of charities to undertake political campaigning activity.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Anna Turley]

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

The new clause would enshrine in legislation the right of charities to undertake political campaigning activity. We are clear that this is a direct attempt to challenge the unfair and poorly applied Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014—the gagging Act, as it is commonly known.

Campaigning is an important part of democracy and civil society. One of the fundamental principles of a thriving and healthy democracy is that individuals and organisations can speak out about the issues they care about. Charities, in particular, have a long-established role in educating and informing the public, campaigning and securing positive social change throughout our history and, crucially, holding the state to account. It is the sign of a mature and confident democracy that we allow dissent and ensure that we have wide-ranging and representative public debate. Charities not only have the right to campaign, but are often best placed to provide important insights that can inform and improve policy making. They are so often the ones on the frontline seeing the gaps in provision, the duplication of services, inefficiency and waste, and indeed spotting the best ways of solving problems.

Many charities can often make a bigger impact with their limited resources through campaigning than through service delivery alone. Campaigning often saves taxpayers’ money in the long term as issues can be addressed at their roots, rather than having to address their costly aftermath. For example, is it better to care for victims of crime in the aftermath of an event or to help prevent crimes in the first place? It is good to help care for patients with long-term conditions such as cancer, but is it not better to push for more effective treatments, awareness of symptoms and support for diagnosis?

[Mr Wilson]

Will the hon. Lady explain how the legislation stops such things happening at present? I have seen nothing to suggest that that is the case.

[Anna Turley]

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

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

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

[Tom Tugendhat]

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

[Anna Turley]

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

[Peter Kyle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is ample charitable law stating that charities exist to serve their beneficiaries? They do not exist to serve special advisers or any other part of society; they exist to support their beneficiaries. That is the beginning, the middle and the end of the story as far as charities are concerned.

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is their full purpose, and they should feel entirely able to stand up and challenge the Government of the day, whoever they may be, and any political party if they feel that their policy does not support their charitable objectives.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Some of the remarks made this morning do a disservice to many Conservative councillors and Members of Parliament. I can even think of Government special advisers with whom I have worked in the voluntary sector as paid staff, and they all did a very good job in the voluntary sector and are doing reasonably well in government.

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he is right to pay that tribute. There is often a political motivation behind such proposals that resents the fact that a party, once it is in power, has to accept that people will challenge it and hold it to account.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the one case that I am aware of when a charity has been criticised for not being politically neutral during the general election. That was the Badger Trust. It is not a charity that I am particularly familiar with, but the Charity Commission said that there was a risk of its political neutrality being called into question. The example it gave was that Dominic Dyer, its chief executive officer, organised rallies in the lead-up to and during the general election, and emailed all its supporters, using the charity’s computer system, in advance of the Labour party’s manifesto launch on rural communities, saying that he had contributed to it and asking supporters to attend the launch event and support it—or words to that effect. Does the hon. Lady think that is right? Surely not.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that suggestion. I wonder whether he would have had the same concerns had that been done for his political party. Surely consultation is a positive thing. If a charity’s aims and objectives are welcomed and taken forward by a political party, it is surely right for it to welcome that success for its charitable objectives and its efforts to have influence, shape policy and change society. That is something to be welcomed, and the hon. Gentleman is on a difficult line with that.

[Mr Wilson]

Is the hon. Lady really arguing that it is okay for a charity to email its members and ask them to attend a party political launch event? Can I just be clear on that?

[Anna Turley]

I think that is perfectly acceptable, if people want to go to any party political event and offer their views. They may go to it and disagree with the party and challenge it. As far as I am concerned, we are in danger of separating politics from the realities of campaigning and policy making. Politics has to be open and accessible and must not exist in a vacuum. Many people are deeply involved in politics, from councillors and MPs to activists; there is not a small box for people to sit in because they are in one category but not another.

[Peter Kyle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are many ways to achieve social change? One is to go into communities and work with individuals on the frontline, and another is to change public policy. An individual using the front-line method can change hundreds of people’s lives, but changing public policy can change millions of lives for the better. Is not it right that charities should seek to bring about front-line change and involve themselves in public policy simultaneously?

[Anna Turley]

I agree that that is part of their core objectives and part of what they have done for centuries. I am happy to support that.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I was a campaigner before I came to this place, and it sits uneasily with me that any organisation that deems itself to be a charity should align itself with a political party in that way. The policy for cancer patients is totally the responsibility of all our parties, in my view, so for someone to take their position in a charity and use it by way of promotion is wrong.

[Anna Turley]

I totally disagree with the hon. Lady. That example, for me, is not aligning with a political party. I do not see it as an issue if someone who has influenced thinking—influenced a manifesto that will influence policy change—encourages people to go and have a debate at an event.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Anna Turley]

I will make some progress, if I may, because we are trying to finish our proceedings this morning.

Charities themselves set out some concerns, including the fact that the scope of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 was very broad. They were concerned that legitimate, day-to-day activities of charities and voluntary organisations engaging with public policy would be caught by the rules. That means that a number of regulated charities, voluntary organisations and other groups will be substantially affected.

They felt that the Act as a whole is incredibly complex and unclear and that it might be difficult for charities and other voluntary groups to understand whether any of their activities would be caught, giving rise to a risk of discouraging campaigning activity. They also felt that it gave substantial discretion to the Electoral Commission, creating an unnecessarily burdensome regulatory regime, and that it might leave some charities, voluntary organisations and the Electoral Commission open to legal challenge.

Legal opinion provided to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations by election law experts suggested that the rules are so complex and unclear that they are

“likely to have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, putting small organisations and their trustees and directors in fear of criminal penalty if they speak out on matters of public interest and concern”.

I want to set out some further reaction from the sector to the 2014 Act. Julia Unwin, chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, said:

“It is my view that the provisions of the Bill, if enacted, could reduce significantly the effectiveness of the endowed foundation I lead, make it difficult for us to achieve our purpose, and divert charitable funds to responding to legal challenge in a way that is wholly inappropriate”.

The Royal British Legion called it “sloppy”. Mike Wild, chief executive of Macc, said:

“Community organisations from informal voluntary groups to large national and international charities need to be able to challenge politicians, ask difficult questions and say what they are seeing happening in communities around them. The ambiguities in this Act will leave many organisations uncertain over what they are allowed to say and when.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

On the second point, perhaps they have given up hope and they may have some despair. We have certainly had a lot of support and encouragement from the sector in taking these proceedings forward. Charities have asked us to continue to press the Government on this issue and to review it. We came under a lot of pressure, and our manifesto stated that if we had won in May we would have revoked the measure.

[Robert Jenrick]

I have done some research into that just briefly over the past few days, and the only example I could find is the one about the Badger Trust, which I think most reasonable people would agree is an example of inappropriate behaviour by a charity. Can the hon. Member give us some examples of charities whose activities during the general election campaign were inappropriately curtailed as a result of the 2014 Act?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Anna Turley]

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

[Tom Tugendhat]

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

[Anna Turley]

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

[Peter Kyle]

May I invite my hon. Friend just to clarify one point? We are talking—are we not?—about charities having the ability to support individual policies. They are not being invited or allowed to support political parties.

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. This measure is not about party political campaigning; it is about lobbying and putting pressure on the Government, and on all political parties—[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order.

[Anna Turley]

I can only respond to one comment at a time, and I am trying to be as generous as I can. This measure is not about party political campaigning; it is about campaigning on issues and trying to influence every political party of the day by appropriate means. We think that is fair.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Anna Turley]

I am going to make some progress; I am sorry. We are going to run out of time.

As I said in response to the comments of the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, charities’ fears have been realised. The Act did stop charities from campaigning—they say so themselves—and caused unnecessary cost and confusion, according to a report by the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, which looked into its effect on last year’s general election. Drawing on evidence from UK charities and campaign groups, the commission found that charities were faced with confusion about the

“ambiguity of the definition of regulated activity”.

As a result of that, the commission says,

“many activities aimed at raising awareness and generating discussion ahead of the election have not taken place”.

A representative of the World Wildlife Fund told the commission:

“I think the Act has created an atmosphere of caution within parts of our sector. It has also wasted time in terms of analysis of it, explaining it to trustees, staff etc. It is not…a piece of legislation we need.”

An anonymous large non-governmental organisation told the commission:

“The Act meant we didn’t undertake some of the activities we planned. Also, joint campaigning was tough as many organisations were very nervous about the Act and (therefore) watered down their activities, meaning our ability to campaign in the run-up to the election was severely hampered.”

Greenpeace told the commission that it had intended to participate in a “cross-NGO campaign”, but that all but a couple of organisations ended up not participating due to the general election period, leaving Greenpeace without enough partners to run the campaign. The Salvation Army said that although it was not traditionally a campaigning charity and therefore not in danger of exceeding the top limit, it was still wary of supporting causes that

“could be considered coalition campaigning because we felt the administrative cost would be excessive and we couldn’t control the level of spending”.

The report stated that 12.5% of the organisations surveyed reported taking no part in coalition campaigning because of the Act, while a further 12.5% substantially reduced and 31% slightly reduced their involvement in coalition campaigning. The commission also stated that it had seen

“no evidence to substantiate the claim that the Lobbying Act was needed to avert undue influence on elections”.

I am afraid the lobbying legislation looks to many in the sector too much like a deliberate and shameless act by a Government scared to debate their record or to be open to scrutiny and challenge by the third sector. A Government who seek a big society and a strong civil society must not be afraid of one of the most fundamental aspects of such a society: freedom of speech and to hold the Government of the day to account.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because she has taken a lot of interventions. We need to remind ourselves that charities already make representations to Government on behalf of the public and of the many valuable causes that people promote and hold dear. Does she not agree that the new clause would risk fundamentally undermining that very relationship of trust, which we are seeking to strengthen in the Bill? Charities often value their independence from Government and politics.

[Anna Turley]

I disagreed with everything until the hon. Lady’s last point. Charities totally value their independence. Previous legislation has sought to stifle their independence and to prevent proper challenge and scrutiny of Government in the build-up to an election, but the new clause seeks to protect that.

[Peter Kyle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what would damage the trust of people who give so much to charities and of beneficiaries is to see Government discussing and making policies for an area that concerns them directly while the charity stays mute because it is not allowed by law to intervene or even talk publicly about that area?

[Anna Turley]

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

[Tom Tugendhat]

rose—

[Anna Turley]

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

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

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

It is the same mind-set that regards

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

and that goes in for

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

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

In 2010, the coalition agreement promised that the Government would

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

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

[Mr Mak]

The hon. Member for Hove talked about the public’s expectations when they engage with or contribute to charities. Surely the public’s expectation is that charities will focus on their community work and their help for vulnerable groups, rather than on party politicking. The new clause would blur the clear line that we have now.

[Anna Turley]

This is not about party politicking. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that an organisation such as Shelter should simply stick to providing advice to Members and not seek to challenge the Government and politicians of all sides, holding them to account? That is what we are seeking to protect.

The Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement also found that voluntary groups embroiled in Government contracts regularly face threats to remain silent on key Government policies. Many neglect to speak out on issues plaguing society for fear of losing funding or inviting other unwelcome sanctions. The health of our democracy depends on people’s right to campaign on the issues they care about. The lobbying Act was an attack on our democracy. It hits charities and campaigners and limits their right to fight for important causes while allowing professional lobbies to escape scrutiny. It has left expert organisations that have a vital contribution to make to public debate unsure whether they are allowed to speak out. Governments should not be afraid of criticism or lively debate. As the old saying goes, politics is too important to leave to politicians. We seek to protect this right of charities to have a loud and respected voice in our democracy. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

[Wes Streeting]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wilson]

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

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

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

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

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

[Anna Turley]

I thank the Minister for his explanation, although he has not convinced us—he will be surprised to hear that. We will not press the new clause to a vote now because we want to return to it on Report. I am sure hon. Members look forward, as I do, to further discussion on the Floor of the House.

I was struck by the Minister’s passionate defence of the independence of the charitable sector and his desire to protect it from the overbearing oppression of political campaigning forced on it by the new clause. I would love to know how many charities begged and pleaded with the previous Government to bring in the gagging Bill to protect them from overbearing political parties forcing them to campaign. In fact, the feeling from the sector was quite the opposite: they were asking for independence from being gagged and being told they could not. I fundamentally disagree with the Minister’s claim that he is trying to protect the sector’s independence. Its independence to speak with its true voice and commitment is what the new clause is about.

I hope I am not naïve in saying this, but for me the basis of politics is to try to make a difference and to find solutions to problems. So many of the aims and objectives that we in this room all share are completely concurrent with those of the charitable sector, so it is inevitable that on many of the issues we try to address and change, charities will feel just as strongly and passionately as we do. They will try to influence us because we are in a position of power to make decisions.

[Mr Wilson]

I would appreciate it if the hon. Lady gave me three quick evidence-based examples of charities being stopped from pursuing issues on behalf of their beneficiaries. I hope that her party has given examples to Lord Hodgson to show where that has already happened. It would help me and other Conservative Members to understand.

[Anna Turley]

I gave examples during my speech. I will be happy to resurrect them on Third reading and to submit them. Going back to the point about the independence of student unions, a university in my area cancelled a hustings because it was extremely cautious. It had sought expensive legal advice and did not proceed because it was not sure that it was sufficiently meeting its charitable status in the number of people and different parties it was inviting. That is a clear example from my constituency.

The 2014 Act is a classic incumbency piece of legislation from a political party that has gone far from its roots and become immersed and entrenched in Government, pulling up the drawbridge and becoming separate from the ideals that drive politicians and the sector. I believe that it is incumbent on all political parties, but particularly in Opposition, to listen right through to the day of a general election to the challenges that civil society sets out to us, its problems with the policies we make and how it exposes to us the challenges facing society. We do not have all the answers, but it is important that, as I said, right up to the day of a general election we continue to listen. That Act had, as the sector has identified, a clear effect on its ability to do that.

[Louise Haigh]

The indignation of Conservative Members that this would not apply if charities were acting in this way toward their own party is a little hard to swallow when, as my hon. Friend said, the Government are attempting to weaken FOI. I note that the Minister did not respond to that point. I hope he will intervene and correct me. This year, the Government, including his own Department, failed for the first time in 50 years to publish Cabinet papers due to the National Archives and failed to come to the House and explain why. I hope the Minister will intervene and correct me on both points, or provide a timetable for action.

[Anna Turley]

I thank my hon. Friend because she is absolutely right. Every political party comes into Government with the best ideals—we heard from the coalition that they would be the most open, transparent and accountable Government ever. Suddenly the fear sets in, and when they start to hear from the public things they do not like it is easy to pull up the drawbridge. We are seeing that with a range of measures from the Government.

Turning briefly to badgers—we have heard a lot about them today; I am very fond of them. I have not seen the email, but despite what Government Members have said, I am still struggling to understand the issue—[Interruption.] The Minister sighs in despair. I will try to explain and perhaps he will show some tolerance for those of us who are struggling to keep up.

If a charity has aims and objectives such as saving badgers, it might write to all political parties setting out what it would like to see in their manifestos, setting out its aims, ambitions and aspirations. One of those political parties might write back saying, “Fantastic; we love badgers too. We want to put that in our manifesto and to have an event to launch it. We want it to be part of our rural ambitions.” Would it not be understandable if that charity engaged with that political party, attended events, and discussed, debated and challenged that manifesto to promote its cause?

[Mr Wilson]

indicated dissent.

[Anna Turley]

The Minister shakes his head, but I do not know why that is unacceptable. I admit that I do not know the individual case, so I cannot comment on the specifics, but judging by what has been set out, I do not have a fundamental problem with a charity that emails its members to advise them to go to a political event. It could advise them to go to three party events—if another party had accepted its views on badgers, it would have done the same thing with that party. This is about putting badgers first—badgers before politics.

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way. The reason why it is concerning is not about party politics; it is about faith and trust in charities. In my constituency, 60% of the electorate voted Conservative, I am pleased to say, but I am sure that many of my constituents who voted Conservative share her passionate support for badgers and, if they were members or supporters of the Badger Trust, would have been disappointed to see it explicitly support one political party. The statistics about lack of trust in charities suggest that of those people who say that they do not have faith in charities or that their faith in them has been diminished, the number who cite partisan and party political campaigning by charities as a reason has tripled in the past three years. Is the hon. Lady not concerned about that?

[Anna Turley]

I do not recognise that evidence, because what has come to us indicates quite the opposite.

[Robert Jenrick]

I will send it.

[Anna Turley]

Please do. To go back to the hon. Gentleman’s point, I am delighted for his sake—if not for ours—that so many of his constituents voted Conservative, but if many of them care passionately about badgers and see such measures in the Labour manifesto and not the Conservative manifesto, surely they can challenge that party’s views, because views can be changed. There will always be things that a political party stands for that we will disagree with—I am sure that many of us on both sides of the Committee feel that. Things are not set in stone and this measure does not seem inflexible and against the grain. I am happy to explore that case in more detail, but I remain to be convinced.

[Mr Wilson]

In the spirit of co-operation that we have had in the Committee, perhaps I can help the hon. Lady. The Charity Commission will send her a copy of its report on the Badger Trust so that she can see the details of the case. I hope that will help inform her for Third Reading and Report.

[Anna Turley]

I very much appreciate that, but, on the principle set out, I do not see an explicit problem with a charity emailing its members about attending a meeting of a political party. That is my baseline, but I look forward to hearing more about that case, because I cannot make a decision without seeing all the details.

I want to make another comparison. Many charities attend political party conferences to lobby, influence and try to shape political thinking. Many of them will say, “Actually, we can’t afford to go to every party conference,” so they may go to only one, whether that of the party in government or in opposition or the party that most shares its views on whatever its issue of the day is—I will not say badgers again. Is it at odds with its political neutrality if it attends just one party conference to try to influence and shape thinking? Those are difficult issues for charities to think about.

[Jo Churchill]

Those charities are making commercial decisions about how they can best influence the landscape. That comes back to the element of trust; that when someone donates, they are donating to the cause and not to a political party. A problem would come about if I were donating to a charity that was explicitly promoting a political party via a policy. I would defend to the death any charity’s right to be at every party’s conference and to put its points forward. What is being proposed would allow people, via the back door, to support one party over another, and that is not right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

It would not; it would just allow charities the opportunity to be free from restrictions and to able to influence political parties in the way they think best, which is what the hon. Lady was trying to defend.

[Robert Jenrick]

I promise that this is my last intervention on the hon. Lady on this point. We should be careful what we wish for here. In the United States, the blurring of the line between philanthropy and politics is much greater than in this country. In fact, it has been legal for charities to support parties and candidates for only 50 years in the US, where we see wealthy philanthropists setting up charities with blurred objectives. We should all defend against that passionately.

[Anna Turley]

I totally agree, but I am not aware that we were in the same situation as America before the hon. Gentleman’s Government introduced this Bill. I do not share his view that our revoking these powers would provoke that kind of situation. As I said at the beginning, we are trying to defend the independence and voice of the charitable sector and to enable charities to speak truth to power without fear or favour and to shape and influence their view on what would build a better society, in accordance with their charitable aims and, hopefully, with the views of many in the Committee. We will not be pressing the new clause to a vote, but we will return to the matter at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Independent schools’ facilities: public benefit

‘In section 4 of the Charities Act 2011 (the public benefit requirement), after subsection (4) insert—

‘(5) Independent schools which are charities must engage actively with local communities and state schools with a view to sharing resources and facilities.

(6) The Charity Commission must publish guidance setting out the minimum that independent schools which are charities must do to comply with the duty in subsection (5).’.’—(Anna Turley.)

This New Clause would require independent schools to engage with their local communities and state schools to share resources and facilities.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Anna Turley]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 4—Independent schools’ sports facilities: public benefit—

‘In section 4 of the Charities Act 2011 (the public benefit requirement), after subsection (4) insert—

‘(5) Independent schools which are charities must engage fully with local communities and state schools with a view to sharing sports facilities and coaching expertise.

(6) The Charity Commission must publish guidance setting out the minimum that independent schools which are charities must do to comply with the duty in subsection (5).’’

This New Clause would require independent schools to engage with their local communities and state schools to share sports resources and facilities.

New clause 5—Independent schools’ music and arts facilities: public benefit—

‘In section 4 of the Charities Act 2011 (the public benefit requirement), after subsection (4) insert—

‘(5) Independent schools which are charities must engage fully with local communities and state schools with a view to sharing facilities for music, drama and arts.

(6) The Charity Commission must publish guidance setting out the minimum that independent schools which are charities must do to comply with the duty in subsection (5).’’

This New Clause would require independent schools to engage with their local communities and state schools to share music resources and facilities.

New clause 6—Independent schools’ careers advice: public benefit—

‘In section 4 of the Charities Act 2011 (the public benefit requirement), after subsection (4) insert—

‘(5) Independent schools which are charities must engage fully with local communities and state schools with a view to careers advice, work experience and further education admissions advice.

(6) The Charity Commission must publish guidance setting out the minimum that independent schools which are charities must do to comply with the duty in subsection (5).’’

This New Clause would require independent schools to engage with their local communities and state schools to share careers advice, work experience opportunities and further education admissions.

[Anna Turley]

I am sure that Members will be sick of my voice today, not the Minister’s! I rise to speak in support of new clause 3 and, for ease, I will also speak to all the new clauses in the group. New clause 3 would ensure that independent schools that wish to benefit from charitable status engage actively with local communities and state schools with a view to sharing resources and facilities. Again, I must pay tribute to the noble lords in the other place who supported the new clauses, particularly Lord Moynihan, sports Minister under Margaret Thatcher and chairman of the British Olympic Association between 2005 and 2012. For that reason, I was surprised to hear the new clauses criticised as “prejudiced and outdated” by the Secretary of State for Education in the media last night.

The vast majority of independent schools in this country—more than 2,000—benefit from charitable status, meaning that independent schools are effectively publicly subsidised by taxpayers whose children do not attend such schools to the tune of £700 million a year in the form of charitable rate relief. Charitable status for private schools may have made sense when many were established prior to the introduction of compulsory education. Many of them were set up to educate “poor and indigent boys”. Harrow, for example, was set up as a grammar school by instinct of charity to educate the needy, but the world has changed.

Seventy years ago, after the Education Act 1944, Conservative Education Minister Rab Butler reflected:

“The public schools are saved and must now be made to do their bit.”

I argue that that bit has not been sufficiently done. Sadly, despite the fantastic work taking place in many of our state schools and the strong investment and reform programme put in place under the previous Labour Government, which transformed state school achievement, the reality is that the gap is still too broad.

Independent schools remain one of the most significant bulwarks of social inequality in this country and continue to entrench privilege and hamper social mobility. Young people from independent schools, who make up 7% of their age group, take up nearly 50% of the places at Oxford and Cambridge, with the subsequent statistical likelihood of earning more and being more likely to be in professional employment within six months. Within the professions, 71% of senior judges, 62% of our senior armed forces and 55% of civil service departmental heads attended independent schools, compared with just 7% of the population.

[Mr Wilson]

I want to be clear about the case that the hon. Lady is making. It is certainly not in the new clause, but is she saying that she is an opponent of independent schools and that they should be abolished? It would be helpful to understand that.

[Anna Turley]

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

[Tom Tugendhat]

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

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

[Anna Turley]

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

[Tom Tugendhat]

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

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman supports state education—

[Tom Tugendhat]

Selective education.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

Okay.

[Peter Kyle]

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

[Peter Kyle]

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

[Anna Turley]

I totally agree, and I will come on to that point shortly. I want to make it clear that my view of pulling up the ladder is selective education, but I will move on, because we can have a whole conversation outside the Committee on that. I agree with the good work that many independent schools are doing; it is just not enough, in my view.

A recent report by the Social Market Foundation showed that UK children who are privately educated are likely to earn almost £200,000 more between the ages of 26 and 42 than those in state schools. Independent schools seem to be stretching further away from even middle-class families, who have been priced out of private education because of an “endless queue” of wealthy people from outside Britain pushing up fees. Andrew Halls, the head teacher of King’s College School in Wimbledon, south-west London, recently said that local lawyers, accountants and military officers had stopped sending their children to the school because of the costs. He said that in many cases, such schools have become

“finishing schools for the children of oligarchs”.

It is simply not appropriate that while the social and financial advantages to independent school pupils persists, they are subsidised by the British taxpayer through the charitable status. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove made the point that I was going to make about the view of the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling on value for money. Charitable status is now an outdated and inappropriate financial privilege that is impossible to justify without substantial action from independent schools, which is what the new clauses seek to achieve.

Charitable status currently means that trustees of school charities have a responsibility to ensure they are running the school for the public benefit. Public benefit is part of what it means to be a charity, to operate as a charity and to report on a charity’s work. The Charity Commission produces guidance for charity trustees on each of those aspects of public benefit and the particular issues that relate to the different charitable purposes that the law recognises. All charity trustees have a duty to have regard to the Commission’s public benefit guidance and must report each year on how they have carried out their charity’s purposes for the public benefit. The Commission publishes those reports on the online public register of charities and checks a random sample of them. Trustees must therefore take action to ensure that the school does not solely benefit those who pay fees, yet the critical point is that it is up to the trustees to determine how that is achieved, and that is what we seek to challenge.

During the Bill’s passage through the other place, these new clauses were voted down on the understanding that the Charity Commission would pursue non-legislative routes. The Charity Commission updated its guidance in October last year, but the only change was to “encourage” schools to show in their annual reports how, for example, they have shared sports facilities; there is no compulsion to do so. It can only be concluded from that limited reaction that there is no desire for any progress on this issue. Indeed, it goes against the very principle of why people send their children to independent schools. Why would someone pay to send their children to schools for the facilities if other local children who do not pay get to use them? There is no inherent incentive for independent schools to share their facilities.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

The new clauses assume that every independent school has the resources that large and well known independent schools have. That is not always the case. In fact, quite a lot of independent schools share facilities or have to use other facilities. The amendments take a one-size-fits-all approach that I do not think would be acceptable to some of the small independent schools; they seem to have been missed out of the new clauses.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The point is not how much the schools have, but the fact that the money they receive from the public purse is over and above what other schools receive.

[Jo Churchill]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anna Turley]

I am very sorry, but as I said before I have to make some progress. I will rattle through, and I apologise to hon. Members on both sides for that.

If they want to keep facilities solely for their own pupils, schools must give up their charitable status. If they want to retain that status and the financial benefit that the parents of non-pupils pay for, they must allow non-pupils greater access. It is time to clarify the law. In the wise words of the Upper Tribunal, adjudicating between the Independent Schools Council and the Charity Commission,

“these are issues which require political resolution”.

That is the purpose of the new clauses.

Independent schools will of course seek to reassure us of the other public benefits they claim to provide, but even the chief inspector of schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, said that that model of partnership between independent and state schools was meagre stuff, describing it as “crumbs off your table”. Why are independent schools expending their energy and resource—in fact, our resource as British taxpayers—educating the elites around the world, rather than helping to tackle the challenge of lifting educational attainment, expanding aspiration and tackling the social inequality that still exists in our country? That should be their charitable aim. That should be their public benefit.

There are many excellent schools in the state sector, some even better than independent schools, yet that is not true for all, and in some communities there is a stark division between the type of opportunities and facilities that can be enjoyed. The Opposition believe that this country deserves an education system where the majority of young people enjoy the same access to excellence as the privileged 7%. That is the intention of new clause 3.

I will quickly rattle through my comments on the other provisions. New clause 4 is about sports facilities, which I propose should be shared. I will not rehearse the broader arguments I just made, but will focus on the role that sport can play in tackling inequality, building cohesion and confidence and raising aspiration, and why sharing sports facilities can help schools to fulfil their public duty test and should be mandatory.

Evidence from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport shows that young people’s participation in sport improves their numeracy scores by 8% on average. Underachieving young people who take part in sport see a 29% increase in numeracy skills, and returns on investment in sports programmes for at-risk youth are estimated at £7.35 of social benefit for every £1 spent. Sports programmes can strengthen social networks and community identity, yet inequality in access to sport for young people is still a huge barrier. A study by the Sutton Trust shows that more than a third of British medal winners in the 2012 Olympics were from private schools. Indeed, the trust says that that figure

“comes as no surprise as children in independent schools benefit from ample time set aside for sport, excellent sporting facilities and highly qualified coaches, while in many state schools sport is not a priority, and sadly playing fields have been sold off.”

A survey carried out after the 2012 London Olympics found that “lack of facilities” was cited by parents as one of the biggest challenges facing schools trying to increase the amount of school sports. According to Sport England, the percentage of those on the lowest incomes participating in sport has hit the lowest level since records began. At a time of rising childhood obesity, less school sports and cuts to local authority leisure budgets, official figures show that most five to 10-year-olds say that the 2012 games did not encourage them to take part in sport.

In the light of all that evidence, the value of sport to young people, particularly those from the most deprived backgrounds, is clear. Independent schools should have a moral obligation as part of their charitable aims and their public duty test, and now, under new clause 4, a legislative obligation, to ensure that their facilities can have a positive social impact on children in their local communities.

New clause 5 focuses on music and, again, I will be extremely brief. We know that 84% of parents want their children to learn to play an instrument, and 82% say that music can help to teach children discipline. However, access to the learning of classical music, in particular, is restricted for many children. Sir Anthony Seldon, master of Wellington College, said:

“When the results achieved by independent schools are analysed, it is often without considering the role that a rounded education plays in this success—and particularly the role of the arts. It is also this unequal provision of culture that gives the alumni of independent schools a substantial advantage throughout life.”

The cost of purchasing instruments is one of the most prohibitive factors. The joy of learning classical music should not be the preserve of those who can afford it. For the many reasons I have given, we believe that music resources should also be shared by independent schools that want to retain their charitable status.

New clause 6 would require private schools to engage with their local communities and to share access to careers advice, work experience and further education admissions. We think it is a vital measure, because it seeks to get to the heart of some of the inequality that becomes entrenched for those in private schools by access to opportunity for outcomes in later life. As I set out in my earlier comments, the evidence on the difference in opportunity in higher education and careers for pupils from independent schools is stark and not diminishing. They take up nearly 50% of the places at Oxford and Cambridge, but I will not rehearse statistics that I have already run through.

That building of confidence for the future from which many independent school pupils benefit, the access to wider opportunities, the networks that many schools have with higher education establishments and the informal opportunities for internships and work experience in the professions are the key to unlocking opportunity. The evidence suggests that having work experience or an internship on a CV is critical to finding employment. More than one third of this year’s graduate vacancies will be filled by applicants who have already worked for the employer as an undergraduate. The critical questions are who gets those opportunities and how do they get them. Alan Milburn, in his 2009 report on social mobility, said:

“What has struck me so forcibly during the course of our work particularly when meeting young people from a whole variety of backgrounds is the emergence of a ‘not for the likes of me’ syndrome… Of course not everyone can be a doctor or a lawyer—and not everyone will want to be—but those with ability and aptitude need a fair crack of the whip to realise their aspirations…It is not ability that is unevenly distributed in our society. It is opportunity.”

By giving children from state schools the opportunity to access the advice, guidance, support and networks that independent schools use for the advantage of their children, new clause 6 will go some way to breaking down the disparity in and inequality of opportunity that exists in our society and help to release some of the potential in our young people that otherwise might never be realised.

[Jo Churchill]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton.

I read new clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 with a degree of sadness and, because of my age, no small feeling of déjà vu. How many times have I heard the justification that to be fair we must regulate? Regulation and quotas, however, do not always work as we might want—the Labour party might know that from current experience. What saddens me about the new clauses is the lack of understanding of independent schools and the benefits that they bring to the table, including how they already contribute to the public good. The proposals would apply red tape to something that is already working.

Independent schools are inspected by the Independent Schools Inspectorate or by Ofsted, and their contribution to public benefit is already commented on in those bodies’ assessments. The whole point of the Bill, it seems to me, is to give the Charity Commission the right to hold to account those who act in the name of charity. If an organisation has been granted the status of a charity, it is right and proper for it to be held to account for its behaviours and that of its trustees—we discussed that on Tuesday—and for its outcomes. That is as true for an educational charity as it is for any other.

Is there a little bit of mischief-making in the tabling of the new clauses? Yes, there is the cost of £700 million, but the taxpayer is also saved a cost in that the education of 500,000 children is paid for by individual parents, so the additional money is engaged in the system.

It is well documented that schools at the apogee, such as Eton and Wellington College, rightly sponsor local state schools and do all manner of things as part of their outreach. They teach older people computer skills, work with local primary schools, and cascade and absorb good practice—from the independent sector to the state sector and back into the independent sector from the state sector. It should be remembered, however, that 55% of all independent schools have fewer than 350 pupils, which means that it is not commercially viable for them to outreach all their systems to fill those gaps.

Incidentally, my children were educated nowhere near a private school. If we accept the new clauses, for those who are not fortunate enough to live near a well equipped private school we have created nothing but another two-tier system. Also, 28.7% of pupils educated in the independent system are from minority ethnic backgrounds, which is a higher proportion than in the state system.

A local example in my constituency is South Lee school. A new sports facility was required, and without prescription or any of the new clauses, the school set up a community interest company, working with my borough council, a charity called Sporting 87 and Bury St Edmunds cricket club. A community use agreement with the council kept rates for use affordable. The school uses the facilities during the day in term time and allows other schools to use them if possible. Everyone in the community is involved and at the weekends, evenings and in the holidays, it is fully used by tennis clubs, archery clubs, cricket and so on. Everybody gains.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I am big supporter of the National Citizen Service; it is a great thing. That is exactly the kind of example of what an independent school should be doing. If an independent school wants charitable status and its financial return, why can it not use that financial return for a programme like that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

On the point about setting a precedent, the difference is that independent schools provide a service over and above state provision. There is statutory universal provision, but people choose to go in over and above that and send their children to independent schools. We should question the right of those schools to receive taxpayers’ money. It is a unique situation in education, so we cannot simply say that it would set a precedent.

[Mr Wilson]

As I said, parents pay for education at independent schools, which relieves a huge burden on the state. It is very easy to dismiss the fact that private schools provide more than 500,000 places, but as I said to the hon. Lady earlier in our proceedings, abolishing independent schools would immediately create the huge problem for the state of how to educate those children.

[Anna Turley]

There is a short-sighted financial view about the cost of educating children and the saving to the state sector of educating children in the independent sector. We are dismissing some of the value that those children, their parents and families would put back into the state system, were they to be educated there. One should not see children simply as a financial burden on the state; they will contribute greatly to the state system.

[Mr Wilson]

I worry that the hon. Lady, along with a number of Opposition Members, has a mindset that the independent sector is better than the state sector. That might have been true under a previous Labour Government, but state schools have improved enormously under this Government. It is important to make the point that independent schools do not necessarily offer a better, more advantageous education for our young people than state schools any more. That view is being degraded year by year by the reforms and protected investment that we have put into our education system. It is very sad that the Opposition do not recognise or welcome that.

[Anna Turley]

May I take the Minister up on that point? He has made a sweeping statement that is not the case. He does a disservice to the reforms made by the Labour Government under the Building Schools for the Future programme—since cancelled—following 18 years of neglect that left many schools with leaking roofs. He does a disservice to our record. Why does the Minister think people send their children to independent schools, if there is no difference from the state sector? What is it that they are paying for?

[Mr Wilson]

There are many different reasons why people send their children to independent schools. I would not like to intrude on the decisions that families make up and down the country for the good of their children. Some may base the decision on distance, if they live in a rural area and the school is close.

[Anna Turley]

They do it for advantage.

[Mr Wilson]

If the hon. Lady is painting the situation as simply one of privilege, she is straying into territory she should not stray into. Many independent schools offer bursaries and many other ways to ensure that people who cannot afford to send their children are able to do so. We might want to pick up on that debate outside the Committee.

What is currently meant by public benefit has been determined by the courts over several hundred years. While not perfect, the current case law definition has served us well and we start interfering with it at our peril. In addition to our principled objection to these proposed changes, there are practical reasons why we do not support them. Over recent years, many independent schools have embarked on successful partnership projects with local state schools. Those have arisen from local needs and reflect good relationships between head teachers in the state and independent sectors. Forcing schools into particular types of partnership will not work in the long term and could undermine much of the good work that has already been done.

Legislation is not needed to make those partnerships happen. They are already happening and are growing in number. In answer to the earlier question from the hon. Member for Hove, according to the Independent Schools Council, 93% of its member schools—1,073—are already involved in partnerships with state schools. Of those, more than 900 are involved in sporting partnerships, more than 600 in music partnerships, almost 600 in academic partnerships, about 400 in drama partnerships and more than 200 in governance partnerships.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds said, when people think of independent schools they often think of the largest and most well known, but the reality is very different. More than half have fewer than 300 pupils, and in many cases they might have more limited resources than the local state school. For example, some may not have any sports facilities to share with local state schools. It would seem odd to legislate for something that some schools simply might not meaningfully be able to do. The measures proposed focus on sports, music, drama, arts and careers and higher education advice. They omit perhaps the most important category of partnership between independent and state sectors: academic partnerships.

Let me give an award-winning example. King Edward’s School in Birmingham aims to improve teaching and learning for pupils in local state junior schools across the city. Its outreach programme has doubled in size in each of the past three years so that the school is now in contact with more than 11,000 state-educated children and more than 450 teachers from 130 different junior schools. More than 50 members of staff and 300 pupils from the school are involved, and activities have included a city-wide maths competition entered by teams from 110 state primaries, which has proved so successful that it now hopes to run annually.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wilson]

My hon. Friend makes her case powerfully. I would not seek to add anything because I agree with her. She is absolutely correct.

It is not just the largest schools with the most resources that are engaging in such partnerships. Belmont Preparatory School near Dorking has, for over a decade, provided facilities and resources for a local community pre-school music education group to meet twice a week, enabling early years children and their parents to enjoy music making and to form links between the local community and the school.

In order to show that strong partnerships already exist, the Independent Schools Council has created and is managing a “Schools Together” website that launches this month. I hope that everyone will have the chance to look at it. As well as showcasing existing examples of best practice, the website will act as a vehicle for the development of new partnerships between the independent and state sectors, enabling schools to register their interest in developing a partnership. So far, more than 175 schools have registered and reported on more than 400 partnership projects. I encourage the Committee, particularly Opposition Members, to review the growing number of projects on the website and support the development of new partnerships in their constituencies.

The ISC will undertake a census of all partnership activities and will promote partnerships among its member schools. The Charity Commission has updated its guidance on ways that trustees of charitable independent schools can ensure they run their charities for public benefit.

[Anna Turley]

We discussed earlier today what happens when self-regulation fails. Does the Minister have in mind a framework of what improvement he would like from the sector? At what point will he intervene or look for some kind of back-up powers, as we discussed today, to try to ensure that further activity is made?

[Mr Wilson]

As the hon. Lady knows from the contributions made in the Lords, an agreement was reached on what independent schools will be doing. That agreement will need time to bed in, to ensure that it can progress in an orderly way. We have no intention of introducing any back-up powers, for the reasons I have stated; in principle and in practice, the hon. Lady’s proposals simply would not work. I expect independent schools to do more through partnerships, as I said at the start of my speech.

The updated guidance encourages trustees of charitable schools to comment on their individual approaches to public benefit in sport, drama, music and other arts in their annual report, and the guidance includes new examples of sharing sporting facilities. The commission also gives new examples relating to the sharing of sports, arts and music facilities in its example of a good trustees’ annual report. The ISC has disseminated new guidance to its member schools.

The commission has committed to follow up with a research project that will begin in 2017, when enough time will have elapsed to assess the impact of the new “Schools Together” initiative and the updated guidance provided by the commission. That research will draw upon data from charitable schools’ annual reports, as well as aggregated data that the ISC collects through its annual report. The terms of reference will be developed by the commission with input from the ISC, and a report of the research will be published in 2017, which will enable us to get a much clearer picture of the extent of existing and new partnership activities between the independent and state sectors.

I have been encouraged by the willingness of the ISC and its member schools to engage constructively in this debate, and I expect that many people will be surprised by the volume of partnership activity that is already taking place between the independent and state sectors but that has perhaps gone unreported in the past. The ISC is keen to showcase best practice and to encourage more such partnerships, and it has shown its commitment through its actions. An inflexible legislative solution is the wrong approach and could damage the good will that exists in the independent sector. The best partnerships are not forced but evolve through local needs and provide mutual benefits. We should welcome the ongoing work to nudge and encourage such partnerships, but we should not make them a legal requirement.

To recap, there are several good arguments, both in principle and in practice, for not pursuing these new clauses. I therefore hope that hon. Members will decide not to press the new clause further.

[Anna Turley]

The Minister has been extremely generous with his time in responding to all our interventions, so I will not delay the Committee much further. I will just make a small point in conclusion. I appreciate that there are many examples of good partnership, which is to be encouraged, but words such as “nudge” and “encourage” are a little disappointing. Given that schools receive a financial rebate from the taxpayer, taxpayers have a right to expect some benefit from those schools. The pace has been positively glacial, so I am not convinced by the Minister’s arguments. However, we will not press the new clause to a vote today, but we may well reconsider it on Third Reading. We are not convinced that there has been sufficient progress that anything other than a statutory power will do anything to compel independent schools to justify the money they get back from the British taxpayer.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Turley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is instructive that Opposition Members do not want to hear good news about the businesses, jobs and investment in our economy. Sometimes, it can sound as if the plan for a northern powerhouse is all about the cities of the north of England. Our view is that by linking up the cities, we will help the towns in the north-west and across our country. It will also help rural areas because we are rebalancing the economy and increasing opportunity in the north of our country.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q2. In 2014, in response to the flooding of the Thames valley, the Prime Minister said that money would be “no object”. In the light of his cuts to the flood defences, his cuts to the fire and rescue service and his cuts to the Environment Agency, can he say the same to the people of Leeds, Rochdale, York, Whitby and Teesside, or is it one rule for his constituents and another for ours in the north?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is completely wrong about the funding figures. As I have explained in great detail, they have gone from £1.5 billion to £1.7 billion to £2 billion. What this Government have put in place is funding under Bellwin of not 85% of what a council spends, but 100%, so what I said absolutely stands good.