Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and John Penrose

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 9th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

As I mentioned in my response to new clause 1, it is entirely probable that it would not be possible to achieve this by October at all and, when we made those changes more broadly for the rest of the UK in previous years, that was done by primary legislation, not secondary legislation. The hon. Lady makes a valid point. I want to make sure, as people reach principled decisions on an issue of conscience, on a free-vote issue on both sides of the House, that they are aware of the technical concerns so they are making an informed principled choice as well.

I will move on to new clauses 4 and 8; I am trying to pick up speed so that I do not run out of time. These new clauses would oblige the Government to schedule a debate on the issue of progress towards meeting international obligations in relation to the reproductive rights of women, and on the issue of progress towards implementing marriage for same-sex couples in Northern Ireland. I have already mentioned that the Government intend to make an oral statement to accompany the report under clause 3. I hope that people will be comfortable with that and that the Opposition Front-Bench team will feel able not to press those amendments.

I will now move on to victims’ pensions. Amendment 10 and new clause 2 commit the Government to publishing a report on progress towards preparing legislation implementing a pension for those seriously injured in the troubles, and for that report to be debated in Parliament. This is a very important issue and the UK Government take it very seriously. That is why the Secretary of State requested updated and comprehensive advice from the Victims’ Commissioner, which we have recently received. The completion of that advice represents an important step in taking forward a pension for victims of the troubles. The Northern Ireland Office is therefore undertaking detailed work on the next steps, based on that advice, with factual input and support from the Northern Ireland civil service. We will keep the House fully updated on progress and we will therefore be accepting amendment 10 to provide a report on those issues.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will the Minister confirm what I understand from his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford): on a very narrow Bill, which is essentially about setting dates for the Northern Ireland Executive, we are going to change the entire abortion law of the entire United Kingdom?

[John Penrose]

No, I think I can probably reassure my right hon. Friend on that, but I would reaffirm to him that there are real technical concerns about the new clause and that those will have to be fixed. He is broadly right on the broader point that a very simple Bill, which is only supposed to change two dates, has ended up with a very large number of other amendments attached, so he has a broader underlying point at least.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and John Penrose

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

7. What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the backstop protocol in the EU Withdrawal Agreement.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)]

My right hon. Friend asks what discussions the Secretary of State has had with Cabinet colleagues about the Irish backstop. The short answer is, a lot. The country and this Parliament seem to have been discussing little else for weeks, and it is the same with knobs on for the Cabinet.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Surely, never has something so important, namely Brexit, been put at risk in preventing something that will never happen, namely a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why will the EU, the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom Government simply not attach an instrument to the withdrawal agreement, making it clear that we will never impose a hard border in Northern Ireland? That can be achieved in time and with good will, first with customs arrangements, then with a free trade deal backed by technology. It is so simple—let us do it.

[John Penrose]

My right hon. Friend raises a creative potential legal solution, which he discussed in an Adjournment debate two weeks ago. The whole House will know that the Attorney General is currently involved in detailed negotiations on how to modify the backstop in line with Parliament’s wishes. Ultimately, it must be for him to judge whether my right hon. Friend’s proposal gets him closer to a legally effective solution that will allow him to change his advice. I will make sure that the Attorney General is aware of the proposal so that he can incorporate it if it is worth while.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and John Penrose

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

My hon. Friend has confirmed my view, and I am sure that we will continue these discussions.

I move on to amendment 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. I think his intention is to ensure equal force of arms on both sides of the debate. I was starting from a slightly different presumption: I think that both sides will be pretty well funded—there are well funded and strong views on both sides. There is no tradition in this country of overall, global limits on total campaign spending. As colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, have mentioned, there are individual limits on constituency spends and national limits on individual political party spends. However, there is no overall global limit on the total amount that can be put behind a movement or campaign because other third party campaigning organisations, even after the closer regulation following the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, can also contribute to the campaign behind a particular cause. As there is no limit to the number of organisations that can contribute, there is de facto no overall limit on the total that can be spent.

Opposition colleagues may dislike this example, but it may have resonance on the Government Benches. It is possible and entirely legal, under the right conditions, for trade unions to contribute to and campaign strongly in elections. There are constraints on what they can do, but it is entirely open to one union or 10 to contribute. If 10 contribute, the money that unions could spend goes up by a factor of 10. There is no overall global limit on the amount of money that traditionally can be spent in British elections, although there have been individual limits in specific constituencies.

I caution my hon. Friend a little. The hon. Member for Glenrothes rightly pointed out that people get enthused, excited and involved in political debate at different points and in different ways. If a campaign on either side captures the popular imagination and engages people, people who were not involved at the start can decide to become involved part of the way through. My hon. Friend’s amendment would limit the number of people to only those who were organised and enrolled at the start; once the maximum number had been reached, the gates would close and no one else could enrol.

It is an entirely unworthy thought, I know, but the Chief Whip and I suggest that one side could grab all the slots of eligible campaigners on the other side and then do absolutely nothing with those slots. That would effectively kibosh the other side. I understand my hon. Friend’s attempt to equalise force of arms, but I am afraid that things will not work as he has described. The amendment would also run counter to some deep-rooted, fundamental principles about how British democracy has worked.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

rose—

[John Penrose]

I give way very briefly, but then I must make progress and finish.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Although my hon. Friend believes that my amendment is not the way forward, as it would limit the number of participants, he understands the general view that there should be some sort of equality of force of arms. I remind him of the point that I made: during the 1975 referendum, the yes campaign outspent the no campaign by 10:1. Given that the major parties generally have the funding and are allowed to spend it, if the yes campaign had £17 million to spend and the no campaign had only £8 million, would my hon. Friend agree that the Government would have to think about that, take it away and worry about it?

[John Penrose]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. At the risk of quoting one of the Opposition Members, I notice that none of us was that concerned when there was a difference in the force of arms at the recent general election on a party political basis, but I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns. I do not think that the amounts of money raised on each side will be as unequal as he fears, but I may be underestimating either the yes or the no campaign.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex tabled a number of amendments that would remove bodies incorporated by royal charter and charitable incorporated associations from the list of those eligible. He specifically asked me to give him this reassurance, and I am very happy to do so: nothing in this Bill will change anything to do with charity law. Charities are already subject to some very severe and thorough crimps on what they can do when it comes to political campaigning. There are only a very small number of occasions when they are allowed to get involved, and even then, they are very closely scrutinised by the Charity Commission. That will continue: nothing in the Bill will alter any of that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Campaigning and financial controls

Amendments made: 14, page 12, line 4, at end insert—

“( ) Paragraph 1(2) of that Schedule (limit on expenses incurred by permitted participants during referendum period) has effect for the purposes of the referendum as if—

(a) in paragraph (a) (designated organisations) for ‘£5 million’ there were substituted ‘£7 million’,

(b) in paragraph (b) (registered parties that are not designated organisations)—

(i) in sub-paragraph (i) for ‘£5 million’ there were substituted ‘£7 million’,

(ii) in sub-paragraph (ii) for ‘£4 million’ there were substituted ‘£5.5 million’,

(iii) in sub-paragraph (iii) for ‘£3 million’ there were substituted ‘£4 million’,

(iv) in sub-paragraph (iv) for ‘£2 million’ there were substituted ‘£3 million’, and

(v) in sub-paragraph (v) for ‘£500,000’ there were substituted ‘£700,000’, and

(c) in paragraph (c) (certain other persons and bodies) for ‘£500,000’ there were substituted ‘£700,000’.”

This amendment modifies, for the purposes of the European Union referendum only, the spending limits for permitted participants in paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 14 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to take account of inflation.

Amendment 15, page 14, line 38, at end insert—

“Declaration where no referendum expenses incurred in referendum period

21A For the purposes of the referendum, the following section is to be treated as inserted after section 124 of the 2000 Act—

‘124A Declaration where no expenses in referendum period

(1) Subsection (2) applies where, in relation to a referendum to which this Part applies—

(a) a permitted participant incurs no referendum expenses during the referendum period (and no such expenses are incurred on behalf of that participant during that period), and

(b) accordingly, the responsible person in relation to the permitted participant is not required to make a return under section 120 or a declaration under section 120A.

(2) The responsible person must, within 3 months beginning with the end of the referendum period—

(a) make a declaration under this section, and

(b) deliver that declaration to the Commission.

(3) A declaration under this section is a declaration that no referendum expenses were incurred by or on behalf of the permitted participant during the referendum period.

(4) The responsible person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, that person fails to comply with the requirements of subsection (2).

(5) If a person who is the responsible person in relation to a permitted participant knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration in purported compliance with the requirement in subsection (2)(a), that person commits an offence.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) is liable—

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;

(b) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;

(c) on summary conviction in Gibraltar, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the Gibraltar standard scale.

(7) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine, or to both;

(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine, or to both;

(c) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;

(d) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;

(e) on summary conviction in Gibraltar, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the Gibraltar standard scale, or to both.

(8) The reference in subsection (7)(b) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months in relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

(9) In this section “the Gibraltar standard scale” means the standard scale set out in Part A of Schedule 9 to the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act.

(10) Schedule 19C (civil sanctions), and any order under Part 5 of that Schedule, have effect as if the offence under subsection (4) of this section were an offence prescribed in an order under that Part.’”—(John Penrose.)

This amendment requires permitted participants who do not incur referendum expenses to submit a declaration of that fact to the Electoral Commission within three months of the end of the referendum period.

Amendment proposed: 11, page 17, line 37, leave out paragraph 25 and insert—

“25 (1) Section 125 of the 2000 Act (restriction of publication etc of promotional material by central and local government etc) applies in relation to the referendum during the referendum period with the following modification.

(2) Section 125(2)(a) of the 2000 Act has effect for the purposes of the referendum as if, after ‘Crown’, there were inserted ‘including ministers in the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and Her Majesty‘s Government of Gibraltar’.”—(Sir William Cash.)

The purpose of the amendment is to apply the “purdah” arrangements that govern ministerial and official announcements, visits and publicity during general elections to the campaign period before the referendum.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Horse Racing (Funding)

Debate between Edward Leigh and John Penrose

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair looking after us today, Mr Williams. I want to thank and congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken in today’s debate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who secured the debate, has been notable in his continuing support for the industry and also for his tenacity in following it.

I am greatly heartened by the relatively widespread cross-party position on many aspects surrounding the debate. That is important to note not just now but for the future, because the problem has been knocking around for 51 years—the levy is 51 years old this year—and has defeated many people across the House and in the gambling and horse racing industries. It is not a simple problem; it is a difficult issue. Many Members have remarked on the fact that there are entrenched interests and points of view, and honestly held and fervently delivered opinions on all sides. If the problem were simple, we would have solved it 30 years ago. However, nobody has managed it, so it is helpful and worth marking that there seems to be emerging consensus, although there are still many important points of detail to deal with.

I am not sure whether this is a declarable interest, but in the interests of transparency I mention that my wife is a non-executive director of the race course at Cheltenham, from where my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) comes. She also has a horse in training, although the prospect of its being involved in any meaningful prize money is more theoretical than actual at the moment. At least the declaration has been made.

Several colleagues have asked about the proceeds of the Tote, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk and the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). The Government made a promise during the process of selling the Tote that 50% of the net returns would go to racing, and we intend to honour that promise. We are currently in discussions with the racing industry, and my approach has been very simple. I am happy to provide those proceeds via whatever mechanism racing chooses, with the sole proviso that it will not fall foul of competition or state aid rules. Basically, we sat down with racing and said, “With those sole provisos, tell us how you want it done”, and we are getting close to a solution. I am pleased to report steady progress, but there are important details that need to be sorted out.

The hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) asked about progress on on-course bookmakers’ pitches. That is a knotty problem that has been ongoing since he was in the ministerial chair. I am happy to report that Arena and Northern race courses are making good progress. They are all but there in terms of signing agreements. Certainly, there have been handshakes on deals, and I welcome that progress. Jockey Club race courses are still in negotiation. Once the big three groups of race courses have agreed a structure, I suspect that the remaining independents, of which there are many, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, will follow. I urge Jockey Club race courses and on-course bookmakers to pursue that remaining piece of negotiation rapidly. Others have managed it already. If we can get them over the line, or if they can get themselves over the line, they will not have to worry about politicians interfering. If politicians come up with a deal, I suspect it will be less good than one the industries come up with themselves.

I was delighted about and thankful for the level of support voiced for the Government’s proposals to change the way that offshore bookmaking is dealt with. It is important to realise that for entirely understandable commercial reasons—entirely logical commercial decisions in many cases—because of a system that was set up with a set of commercial incentives, many bookmakers moved offshore over the course of the past five or 10 years. We aim to change the way those offshore bookmakers are regulated. Several colleagues have been kind enough to describe this as simple and elegant; we are switching the way offshore bookmakers are regulated so that anybody anywhere in the world who is selling gambling services to people based in Britain will have to hold a British Gambling Commission licence. That neatly enfranchises all those firms within the British regulatory net, which is important for consumer protection. In this country, we are used to a well regulated and responsible gambling industry that is by and large clean and tries to make sure that it delivers on its social responsibilities for the small and unfortunate minority of people who suffer from gambling addiction. That is not the case in many other countries.

We need to ensure that we remain well regulated and that we continue to have a responsible industry. A British punter who goes online and uses this or that gambling website does not necessarily know whether the website is regulated in the UK or abroad. In some foreign jurisdictions, there are good regulators, but not in others, I am afraid. It is essential that a British punter knows that no matter where the website may be hosted, it is still protected by British regulation, and therefore they have the legal protections that they would expect if they walked into a betting shop on a British high street. That is the starting point for our regulatory changes.

The changes may also have important knock-on implications for taxation. I will try not to tread on the Treasury’s toes, but some parallel announcements were made a few days after we announced our regulatory changes. They are also working their way through the system. The point I want to make to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk and anybody else who has raised the point during the debate is that changing the way we treat offshore regulation is an essential first step to dealing with consumer protection and potentially to dealing with things such as the levy and possibly even taxation. However, that is not the whole answer. Clearly, we need to move on, having built that foundation, to create a new environment and a new type of successor to the levy.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We do not want the gambling industry to go the same way as the British shipping industry. The way to solve the problem is to reduce taxation so that the industry does not want go offshore in the first place.

[John Penrose]

As a low-tax and free-market Tory, my instincts are of course with my hon. Friend. We will have to wait for the Treasury’s announcement on such matters. It is important to remember that there is a distinction between betting duty and corporation tax. Just as Goldman Sachs has a headquarters based in America but a large operation here in the UK, so too the location of betting firms’ corporate headquarters may be in a different place from where their operations and the jobs are. That is an important distinction to remember.

Given the limited amount of time, I want briefly to update colleagues on the progress we are making in the ongoing discussions between the gambling and horse racing industries in our search to find a successor to the levy. I am afraid I will not be able to give a running commentary, because the conversations are detailed and difficult, with the entrenched positions that everyone here has already mentioned. However, I can report that I have been impressed so far by the willingness of all sides to engage constructively and actively, and with a degree of determination. We are only partway through the process. There is a great deal further to do.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury that while we may have started with the three options that I laid out to get the conversation started, we are moving on from them. I am taking the approach that if the gambling and horse racing industries can come up with something that they are both willing to sign up to, which satisfies basic principles of fairness on each side, it is not up to politicians to second-guess or contradict what the two industries can agree. We want to come up with something that is both enforceable and sustainable, so that when a new contract comes to an end there is a series of incentives and potential downsides for both industries that force them back to the table. That would ensure that they need to negotiate a successor contract or agreement so that the arrangement does not just come to an end after five years. If we can arrange those kinds of incentives, we will have that long sought after arrangement where racing will become in the best possible sense of the word a normal sport that does not depend on politicians and does not require Ministers or anybody from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and where the phrase “Hello, I’m here from the Government, and I’m here to help” does not send a chill through the blood.