European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Gareth Thomas and David Nuttall

Friday 22nd November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Thomas]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman attended the Second Reading debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), the shadow Foreign Secretary, clearly set out our position on the question of a referendum. Let me restate it for the benefit of the House. If there has been a significant transfer of powers to the European Union, of course we are committed to the principle of a referendum.

Indeed, that was the position of every one of the main parties in this House. The only party that has changed its position since is the Conservative party, and we all know that that is because the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and other Conservative Back Benchers have bullied the Prime Minister into bringing forward this commitment now.

Let me go into a little more detail on the three tempting reasons to support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Windsor. All of us remember that the Bill and its 2017 end date is the Prime Minister’s best effort to bridge the chasm within the Conservative party on Europe. It is the product of the unprecedented Back-Bench rebellion against the Queen’s Speech earlier this year. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and many of those who want to vote for his amendment either simply want to leave the EU or are quite frightened of UKIP. They know that the Prime Minister’s pledge is a stunt to keep them on board. Conservative councillors in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) certainly know it is a stunt. We have seen a three-line Whip, photos on College green, and Michael Green getting involved. It is just Lynton Crosby weaving away at the emperor’s new clothes so that the Prime Minister can put on the pretence of a united party.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does the shadow Minister not accept that there are divisions on this issue in his own party?

[Mr Thomas]

With the greatest respect, I do not accept that. Both sides of the House, if they are being honest, recognise that the Bill, in the words of one of the Conservative councillors in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockton South, is nothing more than a cynical political stunt.

I wonder whether the hon. Member for Windsor really thinks that the 2017 referendum will actually happen. I think that the Foreign Secretary possibly, but the Minister for Europe certainly, has already contemplated circumstances in which the commitment could be overturned. Perhaps it was that very fear that led the hon. Gentleman, like me, to read the Committee stage reports. Pressed by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) during the Committee’s second sitting on 3 September on the idea that negotiations might overrun the Bill’s 2017 timetable, the Minister for Europe began thus:

“I think that having a deadline in legislation usually focuses minds on the notion that negotiations cannot and should not be open-ended.”

That is a line that the Foreign Secretary would not be embarrassed by. It is a line of which Lynton Crosby would have approved.

So far, the Minister for Europe was sticking to the Conservative party line. But then the edifice began to crumble. He went on:

“Clearly, no Parliament can bind its successors”,

so why on earth do I have to be here on a Friday when I could be in Harrow helping my constituents if this is nothing more than a party political stunt? The Minister for Europe did not stop there, but went on:

“It is always open for new primary legislation to be introduced in a crisis”.––[Official Report, European Union (Referendum) Bill Public Bill Committee, 3 September 2013; c. 118.]

What we have there is the Minister for Europe quietly saying, “We might need to change this legislation”; quietly saying that the 2017 deadline is not an absolute after all; that legislation could be introduced to change it, or even, presumably, to scrap it. So yes, I am drawn to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Windsor, and want to reject the cynicism of the Prime Minister’s supposed pledge.

I come to the second tempting reason why I and other Labour Members may want to vote for the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. I share his scepticism that the Prime Minister will be able to deliver what the hon. Gentleman wants. The truth is that none of us knows what powers and competences the Prime Minister wants to bring back, because he has kicked that question into the deepest of long grass, called the balance of competences review.

Public Services (Social Value) Bill

Debate between Gareth Thomas and David Nuttall

Friday 25th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Thomas]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The Bill represents a huge missed opportunity for the Government to embrace the other elements of the Bill. This is a Government who made much of their commitment to the big society, yet here is, arguably, a big society Bill that they have—as my right hon. Friend rightly says—gutted. The absence today of Conservative Members who might have been present to defend and advocate this big society Bill is, I fear, further testimony to the lack of support for it in practice.

Let me now deal with some of the issues relating to access to money that might constitute part of a national strategy.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

On the subject of money, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman has assessed the possible cost of producing a national strategy?

[Mr Thomas]

I have not, but the explanatory notes prepared by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington for Second Reading contained an assessment of the cost, which, if I remember rightly, was approximately £41,000.

Many social enterprises clearly have a strong trading and enterprise ethos, but most have required start-up finance or transitional funds, or funds for specialist advice. For voluntary sector organisations wishing to become social enterprises, strong grant income can help to provide a cushion allowing a business model to be properly developed. If there is no clear, thought-through process to make appropriate funding available, the huge cuts in Government funding for the third sector may not only put at risk the services provided by voluntary and civil society groups on which so many of our constituents rely, but hold back the growth of the social enterprise sector.

It is, I would gently suggest, not enough for the Government to talk about a strategy for social investment. I do not doubt the Minister’s commitment to growing the market for social finance, and the Government’s interest in social impact bonds and support for the big society bank—both Labour ideas—are welcome, but when those initiatives are set against the scale of the cuts in direct funding from national Government and, as a result, local government, there seems to be little hope that the social finance market will have grown sufficiently robust to replace the estimated £3.2 billion—possibly as much as £5.1 billion—of direct funding that will be lost. That estimate of the potentially huge loss to the third sector over the coming comprehensive spending review period was provided by the independent analysts New Philanthropy Capital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

It is, as always, a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who brings his experience in local government to this debate.

I rise to oppose new clauses 1, 2 and 3 and amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4. That is primarily because, while I appreciate that there is sometimes a time and a place for strategies, and that it is sometimes a good thing to have a strategy, I agree with what the Minister said in this House on Second Reading:

“I believe that, particularly in this context, strategies should be governed by the need of the moment, and should be driven by conviction rather than by a requirement to comply with some bureaucratic process. I do not want the process of drawing up strategies to be bureaucratic. I do not want it to be simply an exercise in producing more glossy brochures that fill up the bookshelves in our offices, which are not read and which do not have real traction.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 1217.]

I could not agree more. There is a real danger that the new clauses will have the effect of introducing a level of bureaucracy to this procedure that will not add anything to the overall aim of the Bill.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) on his perseverance and determination in piloting the Bill through to this stage. He should be commended for that. Although it has been over a year since Second Reading, and some might think that that is slow progress, it has been positively sprightly when compared with the glacial progress made by the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who I see in her place—the Daylight Saving Bill, which, after a year, has yet to reach its Committee stage.

On the cost of these strategies, when I intervened on the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) he referred back to the cost of £41,000, which was cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington on Second Reading. I was not present on that occasion, but when I read the record of the debate shortly afterwards, I thought that estimate slightly optimistic, if my experience of the costs of achieving anything in government are anything to go by. I am still of that opinion today. In fact, I think that the figure is wholly unrealistic.

The costs are compounded by the solution that is given to the question of how one comes up with a mechanism to ensure that the strategies are actually carried out, provided in new clause 3, which is to produce an annual report—yet another cost and yet another obligation on the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would have not only to produce a report, but consult several bodies including the National Audit Office, the Charity Commission, Social Enterprise UK, the Office for National Statistics and many others. I do not think that that would help to achieve the overall aims of the Bill.

I am often concerned when a Bill has cross-party support. I notice that there were no Divisions on Second Reading or in Committee.

[Mr Thomas]

Yes there were.

[Mr Nuttall]

Oh, there were Divisions in Committee.

This Bill plays a large part in the big society agenda. Once or twice today, anybody listening to this debate would have thought that it was a Government Bill. Of course, it is actually a private Member’s Bill. I am sure that even in its slimmed-down form, thousands of social enterprises across the country will welcome the progress that it has made. Having said that, there seems to be little in the Bill that could not take place regardless of whether the Bill makes progress and without the passage of new legislation. What is needed by those involved in the commissioning and procurement of public sector services is the will to secure diversity of provision. Users of public services are not concerned about whether the services are provided by the public sector, the private sector, the third sector, voluntary organisations, charities or social enterprises; what matters is the quality of the service they receive.

We need the process of bidding for public sector contracts to be made a great deal easier, not just for social enterprises, charities and voluntary organisations, but for small and medium-sized enterprises in the private sector. In that regard, I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). Smaller organisations, whether in the third sector or the private sector, often need a helping hand to guide them through what can seem to be a burdensome, complex and bureaucratic procedure. One thing that we need to do, as a Government and as a society, is to make that whole process much easier.

I hope that the Bill will encourage more social enterprises to develop and to take over, where feasible, areas of service from the public sector. From my point of view—I appreciate that this will not be welcome in all parts of the House—I would not worry if this was seen as a stepping-stone towards services being provided by the private sector. Of course when assets leave the public sector, the true and full price must be paid. Provided that that is done, there should be no loss to the public sector. We need dynamism in the procurement of public services, with contracts moving. Sometimes contracts might be kept in-house, sometimes they might go to the—