Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Glenda Jackson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

All right, all right. I have given way before and will do so again. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) was the first to rise, so I give way to her.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House, and I am quite delighted to have the opportunity to burst his bubble of confidence, because his Bill has created almost a fire-storm in my constituency. My constituents are appalled at what they regard as a gagging Bill. They wish to see a list of lobbyists that is transparent to ensure that Government cannot be bought—even though that is a debatable issue. They know that the Bill as it stands would prevent democratic voices from being heard.

[Mr Lansley]

I look forward to the hon. Lady having an opportunity after today’s debate to go back to her constituents to tell them that the things they are alarmed about will not happen. I am very clear and the Bill is very clear. [Interruption.] I will come on to deal with this in more detail later, but let me explain to hon. Members that election law already has a clear provision that determines that if third parties wish to engage in expenditure, the intention or effect of which is to procure electoral success, they are required, beyond a certain point, to register with the Electoral Commission in respect of that expenditure—and there are limits on it: that expenditure is controlled.

At the last election, I think that only a couple of charities registered for this purpose and the levels of expenditure were relatively modest. Other third parties—a larger number of them—that were not charities engaged in such third-party expenditure, but charities by and large did not. That does not mean that they cannot campaign during an election period, because they campaign on policies and issues and they interact with political parties on those issues, and they will continue to be completely free to do so. All the Bill does—it is the right thing to do—is, first, to make sure that the limit is more appropriate for the future so that it does not allow those third parties to engage in distorting activity during elections; and, secondly, to extend the definition of controlled expenditure so that it includes advertising, rallies and such like, as well as electoral material, and to disaggregate the total into parliamentary constituencies so that third parties cannot disproportionately concentrate their spending in individual constituencies. I think that all of that is perfectly rational.

Business of the House

Glenda Jackson Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his concern. I will draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and, of course, see whether it would be appropriate for the Government to make a statement in the light of that tragedy.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of today’s report from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—CAFCASS—highlighting a dramatic increase in the number of children being taken into care due to parental neglect. One of the most effective programmes in assisting dysfunctional and problem families is early intervention, yet these programmes are suffering across the country because of the Government’s savage cuts to local authority funding. So may we have a debate on this issue, in the hope that the Government will think again, if on the grounds not of compassion towards our children but of reducing the astronomical costs to the nation of keeping our children in care?

[Sir George Young]

The Government have sought to protect the early intervention grant for precisely the reasons cited by the hon. Lady. It is indeed the case that, following the tragedy of Peter Connelly, more local authorities are taking children into care. Whether they remain in care is, of course, a matter for the courts, but we want to learn the lessons from what has happened, take advantage of the report that has been published today and see whether we can improve the quality of life of those children who are at risk.

Business of the House

Glenda Jackson Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will want to keep the House informed of any changes in the position between this country and Ireland.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Today, Age UK published a report showing that the Government’s changes to housing benefit will mean a reduction of £12 a week for at least 80,000 pensioners. We know that the loss of £12 a week to a Cabinet of millionaires means nothing, but to my constituents it can mean the difference between eating and heating. May we have a debate in Government time, therefore, with a substantive motion, on the Government’s failure to meet their much-vaunted promise to protect the most vulnerable in a time of severe economic hardship, in the hope that perhaps they will begin to reconsider some of these vicious policies?

[Sir George Young]

I announced that there would be an Opposition day—subject to be announced—and it is perfectly open to the hon. Lady’s right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to choose housing benefit as a subject. The policy we are introducing on housing benefit resembles very closely the commitment in the Labour party manifesto and the commitment supported by James Purnell. The hon. Lady might have heard the exchange on the “Today” programme, when the Minister for Housing and Local Government referred to the discretionary fund available to those who, for whatever reason, cannot move and are in hardship. That sum is now £140 million, compared with the £10 million it was initially, and my right hon. Friend has indicated that he is prepared to top that up. I hope that the hon. Lady will not cause alarm unnecessarily.

Summer Adjournment

Glenda Jackson Excerpts

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the three Members who made their maiden speeches this afternoon. Interestingly, all three referred to Margaret Thatcher and the influence she had had on them—in different ways. I am sure that they must be experiencing a sense of déjà vu, as I am and certainly my constituents are. Despite the Government’s pronouncements that they are introducing a new politics, it is clear that they are actually introducing policies that are Thatcherism mark 2: for example, the first steps to privatise the NHS, the attacks on state schools, and the terrible damage they are going to inflict on our welfare system.

However, one marked difference is that Thatcherism mark 1 presented its policies on the basis of ideological conviction. This Government are presenting their Thatcherite policies on the basis of blaming everybody else, not least the previous Labour Government. They continue to run with the canard that they are having to make these swingeing cuts across the whole of our national fabric because we got the finances wrong. To those who take the trouble to read the Gothic novel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer published under the title of an emergency Budget, it becomes increasingly clear that his feverish imagination fanned the flames of the Frankenstein finances that form the basis for these choices.

My central point is that in that fantasy Budget—that Gothic novel—the Government stated categorically that, although it would be a Budget of austerity, they would protect the most vulnerable in our country and the low- paid. That is clearly not the case, and the example I give is their housing benefit proposal, which is a particular concern in my constituency. I know that the Conservatives never listen to the Opposition, but perhaps they will listen to what the Mayor of London has to say on this issue. He is targeting the new cap that will be introduced, which at the moment will affect the majority of housing benefit claimants in the private sector. However, the secretive changes that the Government are introducing to benefit uprating—for example, basing it on the consumer prices index, rather than the retail prices index—will affect all housing benefit claimants.

The Mayor of London said:

“The new cap is lower than the existing LHA”—

local housing allowance—

“in all 33 London boroughs for five bedroom homes, in 25 boroughs for four bedroom homes and in 18 boroughs for homes with three and two bedrooms. In 30 boroughs, the combined impact of the new threshold and the new cap will leave families in three bed homes, whose rents are currently at the median of local rents, with a weekly shortfall ranging from £23 to £360.”

That, as I have said, does not even begin to touch on the impact of the changes being made to the wider benefits system, such as increasing non-dependant deductions.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) discussed the situation of people on jobseeker’s allowance after 12 months. I have received a letter from a single-mother constituent of mine. If, after 12 months, she has not managed to obtain employment, her housing benefit will be reduced, even though she is allowed to look for work that fits in with her family commitments such as taking her child to and from school. She lives in a borough in the centre of London in which rents are above not only the national average but the London average. Despite the Government’s protestations to the contrary, this measure will impact on the most vulnerable. It will affect not only people on jobseeker’s allowance, but pensioners and some people with disabilities.

The Government must rethink this policy. In common with so many of the policies they are introducing, they have markedly failed to think it through. We must consider the serious harm that the ill-considered consequences of such changes could cause. This policy will not save the country any money—if that is indeed the Government’s motive for introducing it. In fact, it will cost us a great deal more. I do not want anyone to have to go back to the days under the previous Thatcherite regime when families with small children were trapped in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I can foresee a time when, if the housing benefit policy is not changed, those days will return. We will see more and more people sleeping on our streets and local authorities will have to push people out into the outer London boroughs, which will mean that the low-income workers on whom this city depends for its smooth running will have to leave. Is that really how we are going to create a thriving economy not only in the capital city but in the country at large? It seems to be the antithesis of that.

It is not too late for the Government to realise that there are alternatives. They simply have to think, for a moment, outside their stifling envelope and realise that their first duty is to the people who sent them here. That will be a bit of a stretch—they are not exactly a representative Government—but they have to think again.

Business of the House

Glenda Jackson Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are of course trying to cut the cost of politics, and I am not sure whether buying many copies of Lord Mandelson’s book is compatible with that policy. I was interested to read today in The Guardian, which costs a lot less than Lord Mandelson’s book, this paragraph:

“Darling told…Brown…he was being ‘ludicrously over-optimistic, not only about growth prospects, but also about Britain’s ability to support such a large and expanding deficit’”.

I entirely agree that all Members of the House should be aware of that and other relevant paragraphs.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Yesterday during Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister, in common with all Ministers in his Government, presented an image of housing benefit claimants living in vast properties and paying rents of £1,000 a week. He and the Government must know that nothing could be further from the truth. May we please have an urgent debate in Government time on the Government’s monstrous housing benefit proposals? If they are not reconsidered, they will not save any money but they will certainly put thousands of families on the street.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concern. As a former London Member, I know the price of rents in the city. I am not sure whether she was at Communities and Local Government questions, which has just concluded, but I understand that London MPs have been offered a meeting with the Minister for Housing to discuss exactly the issues she raises. I very much hope that she can attend that meeting.

Business of the House

Glenda Jackson Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

Looking ahead, I have to say that the House will be doing very little but debate constitutional change in the weeks ahead. There will be a debate on the Report stage of the Bill to which my hon. Friend has alluded, and there will be ample opportunity to debate constitutional change and reform in the weeks ahead. I hope that I have correctly understood his question.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate—I stress the need for it to be urgent—on Building Schools for the Future? Following on from the question posed by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) on the necessity for evidence-based decisions, may I say that what has become increasingly clear is that the Secretary of State for Education has never presented to this House, either in debate or in a statement, any kind of proof that his decisions were based on evidence, either of the economic need or of the educational need? Absolutely no detail has been provided, so one is left with the feeling that there is no Building Schools for the Future programme. This has caused enormous disquiet across the whole country, not least in my constituency. May I just point out to the Leader of the House that the people who are suffering most for the inequity and incompetence of the Secretary of State are our children? Our children are this country’s future, so it behoves this Government to afford proper time to this House to examine whether there is indeed a Building Schools for the Future programme, because the Secretary of State has markedly failed to convince any of us.

[Sir George Young]

I do not agree with the assertion at the beginning of the hon. Lady’s question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education set out very clearly in his statement on Monday the criteria that we used for deciding which projects would go ahead and which would not. He then answered questions for an hour and a quarter on those criteria. However, the hon. Lady will have a further opportunity next Monday, in Education questions, to pursue the matter.

Business of the House

Glenda Jackson Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Yes, I have read his early-day motion and it seems to raise a very important point about surveillance. The whole issue of the increasing prevalence of what was called “the surveillance society” is something that the coalition Government are very aware of and want to address. I cannot promise him a debate in the next couple of weeks on this subject, but he may try to ask a question at questions to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on Thursday 8 July. This subject may also be a suitable one for the newly constituted Backbench Business Committee to consider for future business.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate in Government time on the Chancellor’s grossly disproportionate attack on the benefits system, not least on housing benefit, which is causing grave anxiety and disquiet among some of my most vulnerable constituents? These feelings are exacerbated by the Government’s attempt to present all benefit claimants as workshy scroungers. May we have a debate urgently so that this particular calumny can be disproved?

[Mr Heath]

I invite the hon. Lady to ask questions of the Department for Work and Pensions on 19 July. She also asked for a debate on this matter, and I suggest that she will find opportunities to raise it during our debates on the Finance Bill on Tuesday 6 July, Monday 12 July, Tuesday 13 July and Thursday 15 July.

Business of the House

Glenda Jackson Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I attended that debate and heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) make that speech. The debate was, of course, replied to by a Minister from the Cabinet Office. If any Member believes that there has been a breach of privilege, a procedure can be followed, which involves an approach to Mr Speaker.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

During Transport questions, the Secretary of State made it clear that his priorities are encouraging economic growth and reducing carbon emissions, yet Transport for London is proposing massive job cuts and the closure of virtually every ticket office on the London underground. Those actions will impact directly against the Secretary of State’s hopes. May we have a debate on that, and not least on what seems to be a marked lack of communication between the coalition Government and the Conservative Mayor of London?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concern, but the staffing of individual underground stations is a matter for TfL, which may be having to do what Departments are having to do: coping with the economic legacy that we have inherited. Perhaps at some point Opposition Members will tell us where the £50 billion of cuts they identified before the election would have applied.

Business of the House

Glenda Jackson Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

It sounds to me as though the matter might be a suitable candidate for a debate in Westminster Hall, where my hon. Friend will be able to raise his concerns at greater length.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

In response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on affording anonymity to those accused of rape, the Prime Minister said that proposals would be brought forward, enabling debate. That led me to think that the Prime Minister believes that the debate should take place in Government time, in the House. Given the grave anxiety that the proposals are causing not only in the House, but in the wider community, the sooner that debate can take place, the better. Will the Leader of the House commit to holding such a debate, and very soon?