Business of the House
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
This week a new report shows that an EU-wide target of just 30% of energy from renewables by 2030 would create an extra 500,000 jobs, yet UK Ministers are leading the charge against strong and binding renewable targets. May we have an urgent debate on the number of jobs the UK will miss out on, and on the need for the Government to change their position?
Mr Lansley
I am sure the hon. Lady, if she has not already done so, will read the written ministerial statement on the European Environment Council. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs both attended and, rightly, pursued ambitious targets. They argued that it is very important for us not to have binding renewables targets, because it is necessary for each country to meet not just the challenge of climate change but supply and security requirements.
Business of the House
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I will see what our hon. Friends at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are able to advise in relation to that. My recollection is that the rules on what is counted in the minimum wage are very clear about these matters, but I will take further advice.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Naloxone reverses the effects of opiate overdose but it currently needs to be prescribed. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has recommended that it be made more widely available to trained people such as hostel staff so that they can more effectively intervene in an overdose case. May we therefore have a debate, please, on the limitations created by the Medicines Act, which contains rules that are preventing this ground-breaking work from going further and more lives from being saved?
Mr Lansley
As the hon. Lady asks about the Medicines Act, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health about how that is applied in the circumstances she describes and whether anything can be done to help in the way she seeks.
Point of Order
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As other hon. Members have pointed out, the Government are heavily amending the Immigration Bill on Report, which means that a substantial Bill is skipping the normal process of scrutiny and extra time is not being given. To make matters worse, the Government have not even bothered to table explanatory statements. They promised that they would do that, when they opposed making them mandatory. Do you agree, Mr Speaker, that their failure to do so now on such a complex measure at the very last moment is a serious abuse of our legislative process, and is there anything you can do about it?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I am bound to say that she both looks and sounds very shocked. I hope she will understand when I say that, although she is a very seasoned politician with experience in another Parliament, I have been here a little bit longer and have therefore seen quite a lot of things before and am perhaps not quite as regularly shocked and astonished as she is.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On the process by which we are having to deal with this Bill, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Parliament is being made a laughing stock by the fact that we are trying to concertina such a complex issue into such a short time? Does that not undermine any credibility this Government had? They are supposed to be championing the big society, but they are trying to muzzle it, both in the Bill and in the process they are setting out here today.
Tom Brake
First, it is not unusual for things to proceed at this pace. I should also point out that what we are supposed to be focusing on in this debate is a limited number of amendments that have come from the Lords and some amendments in lieu that the Government are proposing—that is today’s subject. I do not want to make too long a speech, because I can see from the requests for interventions that a lot of hon. Members want to speak on this group.
Amendment 1 was moved on Report in the House of Lords by Lord Tyler and was agreed to by a majority of 18 votes. The amendment would extend the scope of the register to those who lobby special advisers, in addition to those who lobby Ministers and permanent secretaries. We debated this issue ourselves when discussing the amendments tabled in Committee by the Opposition, the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and other Members. During that debate, the Government made it clear that the register was designed to complement the existing government transparency regime and to address a specific problem.
It may help if I first remind the House of the context for the part 1 provisions—the unique open government context in which they have been developed. Transparency is at the heart of this Government’s agenda. We are opening up government and the public sector, and by doing so we are enhancing transparency, participation and accountability. [Interruption.] The noises from Opposition Members need to be quiescent for just a couple of seconds because I want to outline the things the Government have done since 2010 to open up transparency. We have published unprecedented amounts of information about decision makers and decision making. Since 2010, we have proactively and regularly published the following details: Ministers’ private interests; Ministers and permanent secretaries’ meetings with external organisations or individuals; Ministers and special advisers’ meetings with media proprietors, editors, and senior executives; all gifts of hospitality received by Ministers, permanent secretaries and special advisers; ministerial overseas travel; all official and charity receptions held at No. 10; and those who have received hospitality at Chequers and Chevening.
Mark Durkan
I recognise the hon. Lady’s concerns, which she specified so well in earlier stages of the Bill’s progress. In the spirit of acknowledging the profound concerns of other Members, I will draw my remarks to a close.
Caroline Lucas
I know how much pressure there is on time, so I will make two short points.
First, I pay tribute to the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the members of that Committee for all the hard work that they have done under incredibly difficult circumstances. In spite of the odds, they have provided Members with good information for this debate.
Secondly, the Government must be in a parallel universe if they genuinely think that the reassurances that they have pretended to give today will provide any comfort to people in this institution and, more important, those outside this institution. It is deeply insulting to our intelligence to say, “Well, a Minister might be able to change the meaning of this clause some time in the future,” and think that we will all go home thinking that that is fine.
That matters not just because of the importance of the Bill, but because what is happening here today is being watched by people all around the country. People are very dismayed about what a shambles this process is. It undermines our credibility as an institution if we cannot organise ourselves better to do justice to the arguments that have been debated in public meetings up and down the country. I have had more contact and received more letters on this issue than on anything else, other than the reorganisation of the NHS. People care about it deeply. It shows how out of touch the Government are that they think that they can rush the Bill through and get plaudits from people outside for the few amendments that they have introduced at the last moment, which do not go anywhere near far enough.
No matter how many times the Government repeat that there has been consultation or that there is transparency, I am reminded of Humpty Dumpty in “Through the Looking-Glass”, when he says that words mean whatever he wants them to mean. That is what is happening here. The Government are in a parallel universe. They are deeply out of touch with ordinary people. If more Government Members had listened to the public, they would know that they cannot get away with this.
Wayne David
Does the hon. Lady share my suspicion that perhaps the main reason the Government are rushing this legislation through is that they want to curtail proper debate and scrutiny of their policies immediately before the election?
Caroline Lucas
I think that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If we had more time, we could speculate further on the motivation for this very sinister Bill. I agree with the motivation that he ascribes to it.
Finally, the Government came to office saying that they would champion the big society, so it has been deeply disillusioning for everybody to see how they have muzzled it at every turn. I hope that people will remember that when they vote in the election in 18 months’ time.
Mr Allen
In view of the time, rather than have Members wandering around the Lobbies to produce a result that we all know in advance, I will not press amendment (a) to a vote. However, I underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan): we in no way accept that the Government’s proposal is good. On the contrary, we believe that senior civil servants should be covered in the Bill, but they are not. I hope that all colleagues in this House and in the other place will realise that the only reason I am withdrawing the amendment is to ensure that there is only one vote and that we do not take up the House’s precious time, which has been so curtailed by the Government’s timetable. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.—(Tom Brake.)
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point at this stage. He was a member of the Government who included staff costs for non-party campaigning in the 2000 Act, and I think it would have been consistent for him to have stayed with that position.
On the concerns of third parties about the difficulties associated with calculating staff time, that is an existing element of the regulatory regime. Its operation in the last two general elections, alongside Electoral Commission guidance, shows that such costs can be accounted for without it being overly burdensome. In its current guidance, the Electoral Commission takes a proportionate approach to the calculation of controlled expenditure, including staff costs, by stating that third parties should make an honest assessment of the costs, which need to be reported.
It should also be noted—Lords amendment 19 is relevant—that with the proposed increases in the registration threshold, smaller organisations, whether they be charities or other campaigning organisations, will not be subject to any regulation. The need to calculate staff costs will not apply in that case, and it is the same for any larger organisation that spends only relatively small sums. Volunteer costs will, of course, continue to be excluded from the calculation of controlled expenditure.
As such, the Government believe that the inclusion of staff costs is an important element of the regime. We have none the less agreed to a review of the operation of the Bill during the 2015 general election. The inclusion of staffing costs will be an aspect of that review. Lords amendment 108 would, however, create a significant gap in the operation of an effective regulatory regime at the next general election, so I ask the House to reject it.
The next Lords amendments with which the Government disagree are Lords amendments 26 and 27—adding up to the total of three. These amendments provide that only limited activities should be considered as part of controlled expenditure for constituency limit purposes. The amendments would require that only the costs of election materials—whether they are addressed to households or otherwise distributed—and unsolicited telephone calls to households should count towards those constituency limits. They therefore fail to take into account the principle that lay behind the introduction of constituency limits, namely the principle of transparency. It is essential for members of the public to know when third parties are campaigning in the constituencies in which they live, and to know how much money they are spending in doing so if it rises above any significant level.
As Members know very well, campaigning does not revolve around leafleting and cold calls. There are events such as press conferences and rallies; there is transport to bus supporters to an area, and there are the payments made to campaigners. All those are significant aspects of campaigning, and excluding the costs of such activities would undermine the effectiveness of the constituency limits. The constituency limits applying to third parties were introduced to prevent candidates and political parties—they are, of course, the main actors in any election, and rightly so—from being outspent and overwhelmed by the activities of third parties, so that parties do not put their own candidates forward in an election. The Bill does not prevent third parties from campaigning, but it does require them to be open and up front about their spending, and not to overwhelm and outspend the candidates and parties.
Caroline Lucas
I wonder whether the Leader of the House has listened to all the non-governmental organisations that have tried to explain to him that, by and large, they do not organise on a constituency basis, and that trying to allocate the costs in that way is incredibly complex and time consuming. Is he ignoring those organisations because he does not understand how they work, or because he does understand how they work and wants to shut them down?
Mr Lansley
I have listened very carefully to what has been said to me. I think that campaigning organisations often object to constituency limits because they erroneously assume that when they are undertaking a national activity there will be disaggregation to individual constituency limits, because of, as it were, the coincidence of where that activity takes place. It will form part of a constituency activity in circumstances in which there is a significant effect in that constituency; otherwise, it will form part of a national activity. [Interruption.] The guidance will make clear that a constituency limit will apply when there is a significant effect in a specific geographical area or individual constituency, but that when the activity concerned forms part of a national activity, national limits will apply.
We need constituency limits. I do not know whether the hon. Lady is proposing that we should not have them, but when we sent the Bill to the House of Lords, a clear decision made by Members of the House of Commons expressed their belief that it was right to have them. Without them, the national limit could all be spent in individual constituencies: it could be targeted on a small number of constituencies in a way that would completely distort elections that are meant to be between political parties. That is the basis on which the Bill is structured.
Amendments to Bills (Explanatory Statements)
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Walker
One reason for not taking a prescriptive approach is that a disorderly explanatory statement attached to a reasonable amendment—perhaps one tabled in a short amount of time—might lead to it not getting on to the Order Paper, thus restricting debate.
To return to my central point, I believe that Members of Parliament, the Government and the Opposition should want to do the right thing, and I am hopeful that they will do the right thing. If they do not do the right thing, it would be reasonable for the House and the Procedure Committee to revisit the issue in the not-too-distant future.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am disappointed by the weakness of the hon. Gentleman’s argument so far. I hope it is going to get a bit better. How can explaining one’s amendment possibly be a deterrent to debate? His confidence in his colleagues’ willingness to do the right thing is somewhat undermined by the fact that they did not do that when there was a pilot. If, as he says, he wants people to do this, why does he not make it mandatory, rather than just hoping they will do it despite evidence that they will not?
Mr Walker
I think the hon. Lady has indicated that it was not the case that the Government tabled amendments in the pilot, but at the Committee stage of the Small Charitable Donations Bill 42 amendments were tabled by Back Benchers, the Government and the Opposition, and 40 of them had explanatory statements. On Report, all 37 amendments had explanatory statements. If I am misreading that, I apologise.
I have more faith in this place than the hon. Lady. I have faith in my colleagues and believe that, given the opportunity to do the right thing, they will do the right thing. The fantastic thing about the Procedure Committee and about bringing reports to the Floor of the House is that it is open to the House to amend them. This is a vehicle for change. I note that she and colleagues have tabled an amendment, and it will be for the House to decide the way forward, not me, as Chairman of the Committee, or its other members. I will not detain the House much longer. I am sorry that the Committee’s report comes as such a disappointment to a number of colleagues, but I repeat that it is within their gift to amend it, and I hope that they do.
In conclusion, I would simply add that a team of Clerks are champing at the bit to help Back-Bench colleagues attach explanatory statements to their amendments. They are ready, waiting and willing to do these things. I also hope that there is an army of Whitehall civil servants wanting to seize the day and impress their Ministers with their diligence and brilliance. I look, too, at the Opposition, in all their glory, and know that, despite our living in straitened times with limited resources, they will turn to their researchers and their special advisers—they are not really special advisers, but that is what they are called—and will demand that they step up to the plate and provide explanatory statements. I appreciate that it will not be possible on all occasions, but let us make this a new beginning for the way we conduct business in this place. If the House does not take this opportunity, however, the Committee will revisit the matter and bring forward more prescriptive recommendations.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move, amendment (a), leave out from “House” to noting and insert
‘notes the recommendation contained in paragraph 21 of the Procedure Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2012-13, Explanatory statements on amendments, HC 979; and resolves that explanatory statements on amendments be mandatory, subject to guidelines to be issued under the authority of the Chair’.
Today, we have the opportunity significantly to increase transparency and transfer just a little bit of power from the Whips to Back-Bench MPs. When I first arrived here, I was immediately struck by how difficult it was to work out what all the amendments tabled on the Floor of the House actually sought to do; and I did not seem to be alone, so I joined with others who also wanted a brief explanation of amendments so that everyone could know what they sought to achieve. At the moment, as we run from another meeting, we look to see what we are voting on and find something like: “Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1)”. So then we need to consult several dense documents to work out what that and many other multiple amendments actually mean.
It is quite right, of course, that MPs should, as much as possible, listen and contribute to debates in the main Chamber, follow all those debates and then be enlightened on the effects of every single amendment, but as hon. Members know, being an effective MP involves many other tasks, including responsibilities to undertake work in Committees, to attend Westminster Hall debates and to chair and attend meetings. As a result, colleagues frequently cannot sit in the Chamber all the time a debate is going on. There are many talented Back Benchers in this place who want to scrutinise, and they should not be treated as Lobby fodder.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
We have checked with the Vote Office and our e-mails and we cannot find an explanatory statement for the hon. Lady’s amendment. Given that she did not table one with the Vote Office or circulate one to colleagues, surely she is defeating her own argument.
Caroline Lucas
I am glad the hon. Gentleman raises that matter, because I actually sought some advice on it. We were allowed to table explanatory statements during the pilot, but as I understood it, we were not allowed to do it now, otherwise I would have done it, precisely to make that point.
Thomas Docherty
But the hon. Lady could have circulated one to colleagues. There was nothing to prevent her from using the e-mail system—the green way of doing it—to send an explanatory statement to all 650 colleagues. Why did she not do that?
Caroline Lucas
I want to make it mandatory for everybody. It is very nice to do it voluntarily, as we would have done had we been allowed, but we were not. [Interruption.] Instead of smirking in that rather irritating fashion, the hon. Gentleman should focus on the debate in hand.
I was making the point that MPs should not be treated as Lobby fodder. After two pilot schemes, everyone seems now to agree that 50-word explanations are a good thing, so the motion from the Procedure Committee to make possible explanatory statements to amendments to be discussed on the Floor of the House is very welcome. I wish it was possible all the time; it is a pity that we have to get special permission even to make it possible. On those two pilots, it was possible.
I also welcome statement in the Procedure Committee’s report that it wants the statements to
“become an accepted norm of the legislative process.”
If that is what the Committee wants, why not make the statements mandatory, rather than just talking about an aspiration or a wish? The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) rightly said that the Government did indeed issue explanatory statements on that occasion, and that the Opposition did not do so. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, one day, the Government will become the Opposition and find it less convenient to produce them in future. If we want it to become as natural to issue an explanatory statement as it is to sign an amendment, we have the opportunity tonight to make them mandatory.
A cross-party group of us, including senior colleagues, who are working on parliamentary reform have tabled amendment (a) because we would like the explanatory statements to be mandatory, to ensure that the Procedure Committee’s wish for the statements to become the norm becomes a reality. To clarify, in calling for the statements to be mandatory, we envisage guidelines to include dispensing for the need for them in relation to self-explanatory or consequential amendments. Actually, that is a good reason for not having circulated an explanatory statement on amendment (a), as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) was tempting me to do: it is surely, even to him, self-explanatory.
Unless we have a mandatory scheme, as amendment (a) proposes, there is a danger that the statements would not become part of the culture of this place, and that they would be submitted only when it suited Members to do so. As we all know, the Executive do not behave within the spirit of the legislative system at all times, and we need a system that will ensure that, when they are substantially amending their own legislation—on Report, for example—they have to explain why.
The recent pilot taught us that the Whips pick and choose. The official Opposition did not bother to submit statements on the first Bill, the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which was a great shame. However, they appeared to have a change of heart, and were prepared to submit them on the relatively uncontentious Small Charitable Donations Bill. I do not accept that they did not participate on the first Bill because of a lack of resources. Sometimes it is more convenient not to explain, and frankly that is not good enough. That is why we need the statements to be mandatory.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I will try not to smirk. Does she not accept the valid point that the Opposition party and, particularly, Back Benchers do not have sufficient resources to submit explanatory statements as well as putting in the time and effort required to table the amendments themselves, especially on an extremely detailed and complex Bill?
Caroline Lucas
No, I do not accept that point. If the hon. Gentleman has thought enough about an amendment to table it, he must have thought about what he is trying to achieve with it. If he cannot summarise that in 50 words, why is he tabling the amendment in the first place? He could also call on the Public Bill Office to help him with the statements.
Wayne David
I want to ask the hon. Lady a simple question. Has she heard of probing amendments? If she has, she will know full well that their purpose is to elicit information and commitments from the Government, and not necessarily to declare a position.
Caroline Lucas
I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point of the explanatory statements. They would simply make the aim of an amendment clear. If that aim is to seek information from the Government, that could be made perfectly clear.
I should like to move on to costs and resources. Hon. Members will have noticed that the Procedure Committee did not recommend a mandatory approach partly because it thought that that could take up time and resources, and that it could therefore restrict the ability of the Opposition and Back-Bench Members to table amendments. It feared that that could be damaging to the House’s ability to scrutinise legislation. I believe that there is a strong case to be made that the opposite is true, and that mandatory statements would save time and improve scrutiny.
The evidence from the Public Bill Office is clear on the question of resource implications. It stated that, where assistance was given with the drafting of explanatory statements,
“this took little time (no more than five minutes per amendment), and usually saved time elsewhere by establishing a verifiable shared understanding of what amendments were intended to achieve.”
So the idea that this would create a burden for the Opposition and Back Benchers is not supported by the Public Bill Office, which has made it clear that the statements typically save time.
The Public Bill Office also stated:
“It is not that difficult to draft a brief explanatory statement, and a Member seeking to table an amendment might want to think again about doing so if they were unable to explain briefly what it would achieve.”
This brings us to the nub of the issue. Do we want Back Benchers to participate or not? Do we want our constituents and our local press to be able to follow what is going on? Do we want this to be possible at all times or only some of the time, and who gets to be the judge of when people should or should not necessarily get to receive these explanations? If we want scrutiny, surely we have to make sure that those who might scrutinise are properly assisted to do so; otherwise, one might ask what is the point of the amendments at all.
Still on resources, the Clerk of the House produced a helpful memorandum pointing out that there would be no extra costs to the PBO, but there could be some printing costs. However, once self-explanatory and consequential amendments are discounted, the printing costs would clearly be very low. In the context of the entire printing costs of this place, the likely cost for this is tiny—less than 0.00005% of a £7 million annual spend on the printing of procedural publications.
For that minimal cost, we would get something valuable—information, and information being given to those who should have it as they vote on legislation that affects us all. When the bell goes, we should all know why. Brief explanations would not only allow Members to check what they are voting on when the bell goes, but allow us to see in advance what Members seeking to amend legislation are attempting to do. This would enhance scrutiny and might even increase participation in the Chamber, as Members could easily see in advance what an amendment was for.
In conclusion, I hope hon. Members will agree that this is more than procedural housekeeping. I think our constituents would be shocked if they knew that their MPs often did not know what they were voting on. When I run down the escalator from Portcullis House at the same time as many other colleagues, I often hear people saying “What are we voting on; what are we voting on?” I am not whipped, so I have to find that out myself, but many colleagues do not necessarily have that information, and I think that they should. This is not a criticism of colleagues. I have no doubt that MPs do not like trying to find out what the vote is on as they run down the escalators. The point is that this information is not being properly provided. It is good that the Procedure Committee is calling for a scheme to make explanations possible, so let us make sure that everyone uses it.
Mr Charles Walker
I have some sympathy for the hon. Lady’s argument. The problem we all have is that we are sent here to legislate, but we fill our time with so many other things that we actually forget our primary role, which is to pay attention to what is going on in this place and to scrutinise the Government. One reason why we often do not know what is going on is that we choose—we make the choice—not to know what is going on.
Caroline Lucas
There is some truth in what the hon. Gentleman says, but if the conclusion of what he said is that he genuinely expects 650 Members to be in this Chamber—day in, day out—to scrutinise all legislation, I think he is more optimistic than I am, because I do not think that is likely. I believe we also have other important roles, such as providing scrutiny through Select Committees, which are every bit as important as at least some of the debates in this Chamber. It is a realistic assumption that not everybody can be here.
In conclusion, I hope hon. Members will vote for amendment (a) to give Back Benchers and the public a right to explanations of what we vote on in this House. We have an opportunity tonight to restore trust in what we do, to show that we want to scrutinise and to make the way in which this place operates healthier and more transparent, so let us take it.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Thurso
I will give way for the last time—I am in danger of being unable to intervene on my own speech.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. Does he agree that, when the Government clarify their position on clause 26, they should also clarify the problem they believe they are fixing in part 2 of the Bill? Does he agree with the Government’s assessment that there is too much campaigning at election time? How much democracy does he believe the Government will feel comfortable with?
John Thurso
I set out my answer to that question at the outset of my speech. I hope that nothing in the Bill stops any charity or voluntary organisation campaigning vigorously for a policy outcome. However, any third-party organisation or group campaigning on the outcome of an election—for or against a particular candidate or party—should be within the scope of the Bill and under the same rules as anybody else engaging in the political process. That is my understanding of the top line and I hope we can get to that position.
New clause 4 seeks to assist on precisely that point. It would mean that the intention of the Bill is clear and beyond doubt or peradventure. As I have stated, there is no intention to stop any group campaigning for a policy. My proposal would mean we have clarity that the purpose of the Bill is to stop people politicking for a particular result except within the rules.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) asked about the student tuition fee campaign at the last election and said that it would not be allowed under the Bill. In fact, the student tuition fee campaign would not, as I understand it, be caught by the legislation. New clause 4 seeks to make that absolutely clear.
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend is right. The problems of substance and process in the preparation of this Bill are numerous and inter-connected. People working in voluntary organisations are always annoyed that politicians of all stripes want to associate themselves with their good works but often want to ignore the hard messages they receive from those organisations. They want to ignore the lessons based on the wide range of practical experience the voluntary sector can bring to the table. This Bill is institutionalising cloth ears on the part of politicians.
It is ironic that part 2 of this Bill should come from this Government, because when the Conservatives were trying to get elected they were proclaiming the big society. Vladimir Putin would be proud to introduce this Bill.
Caroline Lucas
New clause 10, which stands in my name and those of the hon. Members for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and for St Ives (Andrew George), would require the Government to carry out a proper assessment of the effect of third-party campaigning on UK elections, because I want to know what problem the Government think they are trying to fix. Alongside the rest of part 2, the changes made by clause 26 would silence legitimate campaigning voices in the run-up to elections. Equally alarmingly, Ministers are trying to push through this clampdown without a shred of evidence that there is a problem with third sector organisations exerting an undue influence over elections in the first place. As many hon. Members have said, the best way to proceed would be to ditch the whole of part 2 and only introduce changes for which there is a robust evidence base—one that would attract cross-party support—and which could take place after consultation with all organisations affected. That is what new clause 10 proposes.
Some people say that organisations such as 38 Degrees are scaremongering and that the Government’s concessions demonstrate that everything will be fine, but Ros Baston, a solicitor specialising in political and election law, told a number of MPs at a meeting that I hosted this morning that they would be advised to read the briefing from the Electoral Commission itself. Many hon. Members have already quoted from that, so I will not add to that. However, I would point hon. Members in the direction of Sir Stephen Bubb, the chief executive officer of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, who says that even after these vague concessions have been promised
“the Bill remains fundamentally flawed. Our issue with it is not simply how it affects charities, but the fact it suggests they, and not other groups in society, are to blame for the public’s loss of trust in politics.”
He is very right in that assessment.
I strongly believe that there is a case for revisiting the current legislation, introduced by Labour in 2000 with the primary aim of preventing the emergence of US-style front groups working for particular candidates or parties, because the existing legislation has already been criticised for being heavy-handed in how it goes about achieving what is, of course, a laudable aim. As a result, some fiercely non-party political organisations are already saying that even the current rules have had some dampening effect on the freedom of charities and civil society organisations to campaign on policy issues—not for any political party or candidate—around the time of elections.
The crucial point must be to proceed on the basis not of hearsay but of a sound evidence base. It is right to examine the effect that third-party campaigning has had at elections in the UK and whether it has exerted undue influence over elections. It is also right to look at whether the activities of charities and civil society groups have harmed the public perception of the political system, as the Cabinet Office contends. But such a review must surely also look at whether the opposite is closer to the truth. It must ask whether existing rules are already too restrictive: do they make it unnecessarily difficult for the public to hear the opinions of those who might have different views from particular parties or candidates; are they imposing disproportionate limits on the ability of charities and others to engage in political and policy debate as one way of pursuing their charitable purposes; and are they preventing people from getting together to seek to influence the policies and positions of those who want to become their elected representatives?
Andrew Gwynne
Is that not the real point here: many of those charities and third-party organisations have engaged with the general public and brought them into the political processes in a way that all the political parties represented in Westminster have struggled to do in recent years?
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, with which I agree wholeheartedly. I do not think that the main problem we have with our political system is over-participation; we need to be encouraging more people to participate, and that is exactly what is done by third-party organisations, such as the non-governmental organisations, the community groups—
Caroline Lucas
Indeed.
The fundamental principle at issue today is the right of citizens to express their views and argue for or against a particular policy, and to do so by joining with others who share their concerns. It is that combination of the people who come together that we need to protect. We must not rush into changes that could make a bad situation worse when it comes to public engagement with the democratic process and elections. We need an even-handed and thorough review of the current rules. Like others, I am looking forward to seeing the details of the Government’s concession, but there is a real fear that even if their changes do what they claim they will, this Bill will still impose a dangerously anti-democratic chilling effect on legitimate voices seeking to raise awareness and stimulate debate on issues of crucial public interest, be it NHS reform, fuel poverty, housing policy or wildlife conservation.
Mark Durkan
Like other Members, I rise to voice my overall concerns about clause 27. I will support the call by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) to vote against clause stand part. I also support amendment 66, which would keep limits as they are. We have heard no justification for the change proposed in the clause either to the threshold or the limit, and we have been given no example of anybody who has created any sort of difficulty. No scandal has been painted for us; we do not even have a scandal in waiting that anyone can point to. For part 1 of the Bill, however, we know of scandals that are completely untouched, and the message is “carry on regardless”.
It would also be remiss if we did not address some of the nonsense offered about amendment 101. Some might think it is a mad and daft measure that will get nowhere, but parts 2 and 3 of the Bill came out of nowhere. Amendment 101 is already gaining traction, and we are told that there will be an even harder version of it on Report. I therefore think that it needs to be fully and fairly reported. Not only would the amendment restrict the use of public funds for campaigning, it basically states that nobody can do anything that would come under controlled expenditure if they receive public funds, even if they are not using those funds for anything that might be defined as controlled expenditure. Therefore, if a charity, community or voluntary group receives funding, whether from the local council, a European programme, a Department or another public body, perhaps under a service level agreement, it can in no way use the advocacy side of its role in anything that might involve controlled expenditure.
In the context of Northern Ireland it is important for organisations that work and engage with young people who are otherwise disaffected—turned off by the political process, and in many ways socially disconnected—to get public funds. It is also good that in election periods they ensure there is discussion, political conversation and an opportunity for political parties, and others, to engage. Nothing is done that is unfair or gives advantage to any party. Indeed, the kind of hustings that are called put all parties on their mettle.
It is also good that women’s groups get funding, although it is often not enough. Groups such as Foyle Woman’s Aid in my constituency, or the Foyle Women's Information Network, sometimes get small amounts of money, or big amounts for the big and important services they provide. It is important that they too are part of the democratic conversation at election time, because that helps to move the debate on in Northern Ireland from the traditional binary divide that our media keep getting us caught into. All parties complain that we are constantly brought in to rehearse and refight the old arguments. We say we want to fight on wider social and economic points, but we are not able to because those who help to lead, stimulate and support people in the political process to try to move politics in Northern Ireland on to those issues—it is a contest of priorities, policies and performance in relation to socio-economic, cultural and environmental issues—have been told, “No, butt out; just let the parties do it their way. Leave control and influence around elections to the media.”
The hon. Member for Nottingham North said that the biggest people who influence elections and have all sorts of ulterior influences and interests at stake and in play are the big powerbrokers of the media. They are not touched by this Bill or anything else that the Government propose.
Caroline Lucas
I want to say a few words about the contributions from the hon. Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), and I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) because he made such an eloquent case. In a way, we should be oddly grateful for the contributions from the hon. Members for North East Somerset and for Dover, because they showed the nasty agenda behind this Bill. There is a real risk that someone might be taken in by the sanitised version that we hear from the Minister, who tells us that there is nothing to worry about. However, when we hear the kinds of ideas that those hon. Gentlemen have about the activities of charities and other organisations, we are right to be worried about the Bill.
I want to challenge the overall presumption of what amendment 101 is about. I disagree with the essential premise that just because someone receives public funds, they should be neutered for a whole year in what they can say. I worked for a development organisation for 10 years, and we did a lot of advocacy on trade, aid and debt. Our advocacy was based on our experience in the field, working alongside people living in poverty. Yes, we received Government money towards that programme in the field, but if that were somehow to mean that we were not able to speak out about what we saw and the conclusions of our experience, that would be a travesty of the public debate for which this country used to be famous.
I am deeply worried. The hon. Gentlemen confuse engaging in public debate during an election period, which amendment 101 states is a whole year, with electioneering. There is a big difference between the two. The idea that we cannot tell the difference is foolish, and in any case, laws govern involvement in electioneering, so we do not need the amendment.
I shall spend just two minutes on the clause 27 stand part debate, so the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) can make a speech. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). Again and again, Opposition Members and some Government Members have challenged the Government and asked, “What problem are you trying to fix?” but we never hear an answer. The hon. Member for Dover eventually came up with one charity but, I must say, gave no evidence—he cited Shelter with no evidence. We cannot make policy on the basis of prejudice, which the hon. Gentleman appears to want to do. We should make policy on the basis of evidence, which is what I sought to do in a previous amendment.
If we get rid of clause 27, we can start again and think about what we want the Bill to do. I do not think we want the Bill to shut down legitimate public and policy debate and engagement in such debates from the wider public. Other people would not expect hon. Members to do that, which is why I join the hon. Member for Nottingham North in saying that we need to get rid of clause 27.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for giving me the last few minutes in the debate. I concur with the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen)—he described exactly my feelings.
Charities and the Christian organisations tell me that the Bill will reduce the financial threshold at which a third-party campaigner must register with the Electoral Commission. Under the newly broadened range of activities, if a third party plans to spend £2,000 or more in the year leading up to the general election, it must register with the Electoral Commission. The Christian Institute and the Royal British Legion are concerned about that—the hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of charities that have the same concerns.
That is a unique problem for charities, many of which hold events at the Long Gallery in Stormont in the Northern Ireland Assembly for, for example, children in care, cancer awareness-raising or women’s rights, to name three of dozens of important issues. The events are costly to hold—it is highly possible that a charity will spend £2,000 or more in the year before an election without purposely seeking to enhance one candidate over the other. The charities set out to achieve a goal, but the Bill will disadvantage them greatly. I do not believe that the Government have acknowledged or understood the key issues Opposition Members have described.
Registering with the Electoral Commission at the low threshold will create disproportionate administrative burdens on charities and regulatory bodies. One point that has not been made in the Chamber is that the limit will apply to partnership working. For example, if two charities work together on a single-issue campaign and spend £2,500 each, they must both report expenditure of £5,000, which is nearly half of the limit of £11,000 in Northern Ireland.
The awful part of the measure is that, significantly, it will become a criminal offence to exceed the spending limit. The charities will not only be stopped from campaigning; they will be criminalised, which must be wrong. I cannot understand how the Government can say that that is not the case.
Other hon. Members have indicated that there will be changes to the Bill in the House of Lords. Let us pray for those changes. If those changes are made before we debate the Bill again in the House, we will have got what we wanted, but it is a pity that the Government cannot acknowledge that point.
Under the Bill, there is a significant possibility that the legitimate campaigning efforts of community and voluntary organisations will be unduly curtailed, and perhaps even criminalised, which undermines the efforts of charitable organisations to advocate for the most disadvantaged in our society. It could also prevent politicians from hearing those voices. Would it not be a terrible tragedy if we the politicians did not hear the voice of the charitable organisations that want us to campaign on their behalf to make life better for our constituents?
The Bill must not unduly impact the vital work of the community and the voluntary circle. I support hon. Members who are trying to do away with clause 27. I ask the Government to realise they are heading the wrong way.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and then, of course, the Chairman of the Standards Committee, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron).
Caroline Lucas
(Brighton Pavilion) (Green): The very fact that the Leader of the House is having to say he will come back to the House to address our concerns shows that this Bill is incredibly badly drafted, but the point I want to make is that recent freedom of information requests reveal that Treasury officials met fracking industry representatives 19 times in the last 10 months about their generous tax breaks, yet the public are denied any further details of that lobbying on the grounds that it could prejudice commercial interests. Is the Leader of the House not ashamed that this Bill will drastically curtail the ability of charities to campaign in the public interest on issues such as fuel poverty and energy but do nothing to curb such secretive corporate influencing?
Mr Lansley
Of course the Bill does not constrain the ability of charities to campaign. Let us look back at 2010. Only two charities registered for expenditure for electoral purposes and they spent very little. The campaigning by third parties at the last election was not in any substantial way undertaken by charities. It was undertaken by other third parties—trade unions, companies, campaign groups and so forth. The idea that charities are in any way constrained is completely wrong.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Lady makes a very compelling case. A moment ago she spoke about transparency. Does she agree that that should include financial transparency so that we can see a genuine, good-faith estimate of how much money has been spent on lobbying activities and thus compare what the large multinational corporations are spending versus non-profit organisations?
Ms Eagle
The hon. Lady makes another good point. We have to see what the size and value is as well as the fact that there have been meetings.
Part 2 covers third-party campaigning in the run-up to an election. All hon. Members will remember how the Prime Minister used to evangelise about the big society, but in one of the most sinister bits of legislation that I have seen in some time, this Bill twists the rules on third-party campaigning to scare charities and campaigners away from speaking out. It is an assault on the big society that the Prime Minister once claimed to revere. I say this because part 2 broadens significantly what activities will be caught by the phrase “election campaign”. That is set out in detail in new schedule 8A to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
Part 2 creates in clause 26 a new and extremely wide definition of “electoral purposes”. It is clear that these changes will have wide-ranging implications for many hundreds of charities and campaigners local and national, large and small. Some of them have told us that they will have to pull back from almost all engagement in debates on public policy in the year before the election. These changes have created massive uncertainty for those who may fall within the regulations in a way that the Electoral Commission has deplored. The changes will mean that third-party campaigning will be restricted even if it was not intended to affect the outcome of an election—for example, engaging in public policy debate. Staff costs and overheads will also have to be included in what has to be declared—something that does not apply in this way to political parties. The Electoral Commission has said that these changes could have a “dampening effect” on public debate. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has said that the changes will
“have the result of muting charities and groups of all sorts and sizes on the issues that matter most to them and the people that they support.”
38 Degrees has said that the changes will
“have a chilling effect on British democracy”.
Business of the House
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend raises an important aspect of the positive announcements made by the Chancellor yesterday. There are now many local authorities —Plymouth clearly is one—that are making increasingly effective use of the resources provided to the troubled families programme. Some £448 million over three years was announced in December 2011 by the Prime Minister, and the extension now announced for funding in 2015-16 enables a further expansion. I cannot offer time at the moment, but my hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Many hon. Members may now feel that they are starting to understand the benefit of this programme and the opportunity that the extension might give, and they are probably starting to think that it is time for them to start sharing that knowledge in this House so people can see the progress we are making.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
May we have a science-led debate on whether Ministers should be spending more time working out how to keep fossil fuels in the ground and less time squandering taxpayers’ money on tax breaks for shale gas that scientists say we simply cannot afford to burn if the Government are to keep to their commitment to limit global warming to below 2°, a commitment that was reaffirmed at the G8 last week?
Mr Lansley
I am not sure that I am likely to agree with the hon. Lady on the possible benefits of investment in shale gas exploitation, not least for hard-pressed consumers who want to see the benefits in terms of energy prices, and for the security of energy supply in this country. She has had opportunities during discussions on the Energy Bill to consider these matters and I am sure that there will be further opportunities in the future.
Lobbying
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jon Trickett
I will not take any more interventions, because I want to make some progress and other people want to speak.
It is not difficult to define what the House should do to regulate the industry—I agree that the point is to regulate as well as to register, as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said—and it need not be burdensome for professional lobbyists. In fact, it takes about 20 minutes to provide the necessary information on the relevant form—I have tried it myself. The Bill should do four things. It should create a clear definition of professional lobbying; a statutory register of all those who lobby professionally; a clear code of conduct that forbids inappropriate financial relations between lobbyists and parliamentarians; and a strong system of sanctions when the code is breached.
All that is detail, however. We are simply asking for a commitment from the Government to agree to cross-party talks—in fact, that is really all our motion asks for—not as an excuse for failing to act, but as a prelude to rapid action to bring this matter into proper order. I hope that the Government’s amendment to the motion is not a signal that they intend to conflate a series of irrelevant issues in order to obfuscate further and therefore once more evade the central question before us this afternoon, which is: how are we going to reform and then regulate the lobbying industry? The noble Lord Wallace, who speaks for the Cabinet Office in another place, said that the Government did not intend to conflate these matters. I hope he is correct, but I fear he is not.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but does he agree that if we are genuinely to restore public trust in politics, the statutory register of lobbyists has to be the very minimum, and that we must do far more to tackle the excessive influence of corporate money and vested interests and to address things such as the invisible secondments of people from industry right into the centre of policy making here in Whitehall?
Jon Trickett
I will be speaking on other matters, as will other Labour spokespeople in due course, but the hon. Lady is right that we have to take big money out of politics across the board. We have proposals to do that, and have made some difficult recommendations on trade unions, if anyone is interested. It is the Government who are stalling the negotiations on party funding.
We need a lobbying Bill that will begin the process of cleaning up our politics and create a level playing field for all the professional lobbyists who behave ethically but are constantly undermined by a few who do not play by the rules. Nothing less will do. The Leader of the House must say whether he will continue to speak for the closed circle, the tiny elite, that seems to run our country and on whose behalf many professional lobbyists often work, or whether he will speak on behalf of the many by placing the professional lobbying industry on a proper footing.
Business of the House
Caroline Lucas Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an interesting point. In my constituency, which, like his, has had many recent developments, many such roads have been adopted, so it is clear that many authorities are taking up the opportunity that exists. However, I will of course talk with my friends in the Department for Transport to secure a fuller answer for him. If he wishes to raise the matter on behalf of his constituents, Ministers will be here to answer questions on 27 June.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Today the Canadian Prime Minister is addressing hon. Members of both Houses as part of what seems to be a huge state lobbying effort on behalf of companies, such as Shell, that want to exploit tar sands at any cost and weaken the EU fuel quality directive to create a market for this dirty oil. Since tar sand oil is so incredibly damaging, may we have a debate on the cosy relationship between politicians and the fossil fuel industry, both in the UK and elsewhere?
Mr Lansley
For a moment there I was pleased that the hon. Lady was drawing attention to the presence in the Houses of Parliament of the Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who will be speaking in an hour or so. I rather regret the way she then went on to speak about Canada. Canada is among our very closest friends and allies in so many ways. The Prime Minister is a distinguished occupant of that post in Canada and I think that we should welcome him wholeheartedly.