Article 50: Parliamentary Approval

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Penrose

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I am happy to confirm that this is not a question of “if” we leave the EU but “how”, so the calculation that we—particularly the new Prime Minister and her team—need to make is about the best way to structure and time negotiations to maximise our leverage. I am sure that the incoming Prime Minister will have read the Committee’s report with great care, as have we all, and will take those factors into consideration.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

At the beginning of his first answer, the Minister said that this was not just a legal matter, but a political matter, so I cannot understand for the life of me why the Government are challenging the legal case. Surely sending in lawyers is just a complete waste of money—whether it is 10 lawyers or 1,000, it does not matter. Why are the Government wasting money on trying to assert that this is just a matter of royal prerogative, rather than accepting the political fact that while, yes, Brexit is Brexit—that may be the case—the Minister is far more likely to get a good deal from other European countries if he has managed to bind both sides of this House and both Houses of Parliament into a strong negotiating position?

[John Penrose]

I had thought, and hoped, that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley was speaking for more Labour Members and that we would be able to achieve a degree of cross-party consensus. It would be helpful to have country-wide unanimity on this issue, so I am sad that there does not seem to be such unanimity on the Opposition Benches. The Attorney General, who is sitting next to me, is convinced that the Government’s case is strongly arguable, and that is why we are taking this case to court.

Short Money

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Penrose

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Leader of the House to make a statement on the Government consultation on Short money.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

I am happy to confirm that since we last discussed this topic on the day the House rose for recess, we have completed the steps I promised at the time. On Friday 12 February I tabled the statutory instrument required to change the allocations of policy development grants to fund political parties, in line with the recommended changes put forward by the independent Electoral Commission. Last Thursday the Deputy Leader of the House and I tabled a request for views about potential similar changes to Short money. I hope the House will therefore appreciate why I am responding to this urgent question.

The parallels between policy development grants and Short money—both forms of taxpayer funding for political parties—are strong and, since Short money is larger and more valuable than policy development grants, it seems sensible to take a similar approach. The request for views asks some important questions. For example, the cost of Short money has gone up by 50% since 2010, and will rise by a whopping 68% by the end of this Parliament if nothing is done. At a time when everybody else outside Westminster has had to tighten their belts, why should politicians expect to be treated differently, feathering their own nests at taxpayers’ expense?

The rises in Short money are linked to the retail prices index inflation every year, but benefits claimants get rises linked to the lower consumer prices index inflation each year, so how can any politician look their constituent in the eye and say that they deserve a bigger rise every year than someone who is looking for a job or is on a pension or living with a disability?

The rises in Short money are also linked to the number of votes cast at elections. That has contributed this year to an enormous 30% increase, from £7.25 million in 2014-15 to almost £9.5 million this year. How can that be justified when many vital public services are having to cope with cuts of 19%? Short money is notably untransparent. It is taxpayers’ money after all, but there is no requirement to publish details of how it is spent. There are, rightly, requirements, on the parallel policy development grants and on pretty much every other area of Government funding, too. How can it be right in the modern age for politicians to expect to be bunged a load of hard-earned taxpayers’ cash—more than £35 million in total since 2010 for the Labour party, for example—without at least explaining how it gets spent?

Finally, the distribution of Short money between parties throws up some pretty odd results. For example, UKIP gets £688,000 for its one MP, although the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) has, in an impressively principled stand, turned some of that down. The Greens, also with one MP, get less than a third of that. Clearly, it makes sense to ask whether that can be improved.

These important questions need to be answered. The request for views runs until 7 March so there is plenty of time for everyone on all sides of the House to submit their views and opinions, and there will be plenty of time for us to debate these issues here or in Westminster Hall if anyone wants to do so. We are already off to a flying start with this second urgent question, and I will take contributions from everybody here today in the spirit of constructive submissions and suggestions in answer to the questions that the request for views has raised.

[Chris Bryant]

That is all very well, but Short money has nothing to do with the Cabinet Office. It is House business, not Government business. The whole point is that it enables Parliament to do its business properly. The accounting officer is not the permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office, but the Clerk of the House. The Leader of the House should be here doing his job properly and answering questions.

Can this Minister confirm that any changes will have to be debated, and voted on, on the Floor of the House? Can he confirm that because this is House business, it will not be subject to a Government Whip? This is the shoddiest so-called consultation I have ever come across. It deliberately forgets to mention that Short money is linked to how many seats and how many votes all the Opposition parties got at a general election, so the main reason Short money has increased in 2015 is that this Government have a much smaller majority than the Labour Government or the coalition Government, and the Opposition parties got more seats and more votes than in previous Parliaments.

Can the Minister confirm that, contrary to what he says, this is not a 19% cut? With inflation, it is a 24% cut. How can that be right when the Chancellor has increased the cost of his political office to the taxpayer by 204%? Or is there one rule for the Opposition and quite another for the Government?

The Minister said last time that the cost and number of taxpayer-funded Tory special advisers—the only bit of this that he is responsible for—is coming down, but that is not true either, is it? Since the general election that figure has gone up, so will the Government be taking a 19% cut on 1 April? No, I do not suppose they will.

The consultation, published in the half-term recess—the Minister should be ashamed of himself—allows just 11 working days for responses, and then seems to intend to implement a decision less than three weeks later. Will that give the two Conservative-chaired Select Committees that have expressed an interest in doing inquiries time to complete those inquiries? I do not suppose it will. That is another affront to this House.

Fair-minded people will conclude that the Government are developing a nasty authoritarian streak, and that an overweening Executive wants to crush all opposition because they are afraid of scrutiny. When we were in government we trebled Short money and the Tories did not hesitate to bank £46 million, so we will not take any lessons from the Minister. When I was Deputy Leader of the House in 2009, some people suggested that we should cut Short money for the Conservative party because other Departments in Government were facing significant cuts. We said, “No, democracy is worth protecting.” This is not a consultation on cutting the cost of politics—we would welcome that. It is a pernicious ultimatum and the Government should withdraw it unless they are prepared to put Spads on the table as well. To quote the Minister, why should the Government be treated any differently from the Opposition? Feathering their own nest—that is what they are doing.

[John Penrose]

I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the cost of Spads, as I mentioned when we last met to discuss this, has fallen since the general election. The request for views is entirely clear about the various different causes of the rise in Short money, and the consultation asks for views and expressions of how it might be amended point by point, so the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about how the request for views is done.

Even if no changes are made to some of the proposals in the request for views, the Labour party will still receive more funding in real terms than did the Conservative party in 2009-10. It will receive an estimated £11 million of taxpayers’ money over this Parliament. There will be no real reduction in cash terms; in fact, there will be a small increase in cash terms, even after a 19% cut, compared with 2014-15. [Interruption.]

Short Money and Policy Development Grant

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Penrose

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Leader of the House to make a statement on Short money and the policy development grant.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

That includes the policy development grant, Mr Speaker.

As the shadow Leader of the House will already know, the Electoral Commission has been consulting on changes to policy development grant, and there have been informal discussions about parallel changes to Short money between the political parties as well. I can confirm that we plan to initiate further, more formal consultations on Short money shortly. There will be plenty of time and opportunity for views to be expressed on both sides of the House, and I am sure, if he runs true to form, he will use those opportunities well.

I am also required, under the terms of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, to lay a statutory instrument before the House to adjust the shares of policy development grant between political parties to reflect the results of the recent general election. This statutory instrument is nearly ready and will be laid soon. I am sure it will then be scrutinised and debated carefully by the House, if it wishes, in the usual way.

[Chris Bryant]

Does the Minister agree that it

“cannot be right…for Opposition parties to be under-resourced, particularly when…the Government have increased substantially, from taxpayers’ money, the resources that they receive for their own special advisers”?—[Official Report, 26 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 428-9.]

Those are not my words; they were the words of Sir George Young, when he was the Conservative shadow Leader of the House, arguing for even more Short money for the Tories when the Labour Government trebled it for them in 1999. In opposition, the Prime Minister said he would cut the number and cost of special advisers, yet in government he has appointed 27 more than ever before and the cost to the taxpayer has gone up by £2.5 million a year. There is a word for that, Mr Speaker, but it is not parliamentary.

In opposition, the Conservatives banked £46 million a year in Short money, yet in government they want to cut it for the Opposition by 20%. There is a word for that, Mr Speaker, but it is not parliamentary. How can it be right for the Government to cut the policy development grant to political parties by 19%, when they are not cutting the amount of money spent on their own special advisers? Surely history has taught us that an overweening Executive is always a mistake. Surely, if a party in government needs financial support in addition to the civil service, it is in the national interest that all the Opposition parties should be properly resourced as well.

The Government have briefed journalists that they will publish their proposals on Short money tomorrow—in the recess—and that, basically, is what the Minister just admitted. Surely, above all else, this is a matter for the House. Short money was created by the House, and amendments have to be agreed by the House, so surely the House should hear first. Why, then, has the Leader of the House made absolutely no attempt to meet me or representatives of any other political party for proper consultation? Why did he fail to turn up for three meetings yesterday? Why is he not doing his proper job and standing at the Dispatch Box today? Mr Speaker, what is the word for this behaviour? Is it shabby, tawdry or just downright cynical?

[John Penrose]

I apologise fulsomely for not being the Leader of the House. I am sure that the shadow Leader of the House is looking forward to his weekly arm wrestle with him, but in the meantime I hope that he will accept having the other policy Minister—I am responsible for policy development grants—responding to his question and treat it as an amuse-bouche for his later work-outs with the Leader of the House.

To clarify one further point, I did not say we were launching “proposals”; I said we would be launching further “consultations”—and it is extremely important to understand that consultations involve a dialogue. The determined assault of the shadow Leader of the House is rather blunted by the fact that he will have a huge opportunity to contribute, as will others of all parties, as required, as soon as this consultation is launched.

One important point that the shadow Leader of the House managed to gloss over—I am sure inadvertently—is that Short money, contrary to the impression given by his remarks, has actually risen very substantially over the course of the last five years. It has gone up by more than 50%; it is more than 50% higher than it used to be. If we make no changes over the next few years, it will continue to rise still further. The population—the voters—who have had five or more years of having to tighten their belts to deal with the—[Interruption.]