Electoral Fraud: Tower Hamlets

John Penrose Excerpts

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I hold the hon. Gentleman in equally high regard, and he was kind about me in his remarks. From the title of the debate, he will appreciate that this topic falls neatly between three different Departments; one could argue that parts of it should be responded to by the Department for Communities and Local Government, other parts by the Policing Minister, and those parts to do with electoral fraud by a Cabinet Office Minister. I am therefore wearing three hats and have three different sets of briefings, and I will endeavour to cover the entire waterfront. I am sure that we can address any follow-up questions that the hon. Gentleman has, and I will endeavour to cover all the issues he raised.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this subject. Not only is it important to his constituency and borough—it is undoubtedly crucial there—but it has resonance in many parts of the country. Thankfully, electoral fraud is not terribly common in Britain and we do not encounter it often. There is a steady trickle of allegations, and occasional successful prosecutions or problems with our elections, but it is only a trickle. As the old saying goes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and it would be entirely wrong for us to become complacent. The only way we can maintain an otherwise enviable, widespread trust in this country’s elections is by taking problems such as those that occurred in Tower Hamlets extremely seriously when they crop up. We must ensure that there is no repetition, and that anybody thinking of misbehaving in the same way finds it incredibly difficult and is dissuaded from going down that route.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I put on the record my personal admiration for the heroism of those people who took this matter to the electoral court? Does the Minister agree that it would be a betrayal of their courage if the police, for reasons of political correctness, were not to follow through on what appears, in the case laid out by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), to be an open-and-shut matter of criminality?

[John Penrose]

My right hon. Friend anticipates my next remarks, because we all owe a debt of gratitude to the four petitioners. We have heard that they were pretty heroic in the way they pursued this matter. They were not dissuaded. There were plenty of points at which lesser people might have backed away, but they did not take those opportunities and they pursued the matter through thick and thin. On occasion what they had to put up with was pretty thick and pretty thin, yet they continued throughout. We owe them a debt of thanks, particularly those local to Tower Hamlets.

It was not just those four petitioners whom we must thank, however, because other people picked up the challenge. We must thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), who put the commissioners in Tower Hamlets in the first place, as well as the commissioners; the presiding judge, Richard Mawrey, QC; a number of other officials, including Barry Quirk; and local councillors such as Peter Golds for their assiduous and determined campaign. Many people rallied round the cause of democracy in Tower Hamlets, which is all to the good.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot comment on specific details of ongoing investigations. As an experienced parliamentarian and former Minister, he will understand the constraints of what I can and cannot say. He is, however, doing entirely the right thing. He mentioned that he was about to have discussions and meetings with Commissioner Hogan-Howe and perhaps others. I hope that they can provide him with further reassurances about what is going on with the investigations. I understand that there are still investigations into grant fraud, for example, in parallel with the ongoing investigations into electoral fraud. They perhaps cannot be made public, but he might be able to get further reassurances.[Official Report, 12 May 2016, Vol. 609, c. 3MC.]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will also pursue, assiduously and determinedly, the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) about the extremely trenchant criticisms in Richard Mawrey’s judgment. While many people might have expected a prosecution to be straightforward, clearly there are different standards of proof, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and different levels of admissibility for evidence. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service need to make a judgment, but he will want to investigate the individual cases and allegations to find out what can be pursued. Local people in Tower Hamlets and the electoral community more widely will want to know how we can be sure that these sorts of cases are pursued in the strongest possible terms, whenever the evidence allows, so I would encourage him in those meetings and in pursuing those inquiries.

The hon. Gentleman asked where the plaintiffs stood in respect of recovering costs, and then gave at least a partial answer to his question by talking about the ongoing discussions and investigations in respect of the ownership of assets associated with former Mayor Rahman and members of his family. There have been press stories and reports of court judgments about what has, and has not, been found to be the property of either the former mayor or his family. I understand that that process is ongoing, and again I cannot comment much beyond that, but this is not a finished story, or a set of conclusions finally reached. The mills of both God and, in this case, the justice system are grinding slowly but, one hopes, exceeding small as well.

The hon. Gentleman asked how we might take forward the broader question of how electoral fraud can be made less easy to perpetrate, though it is not easy in the first place, and how we can ensure that the consequences of electoral fraud are clear, swift and unappealing to those considering undertaking it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, the former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, is working on a report on electoral fraud for the Government that I suspect will land on my desk with a satisfactorily large and weighty thud in the next few weeks or months, with a series of recommendations as to how we can tighten the rules still further.

I obviously do not want to prejudge my right hon. Friend’s recommendations, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my right hon. Friend, having been Secretary of State and, before he entered the House, the leader of a local council, will have observed the local democratic process up close and in huge detail, and will have seen its strengths and weaknesses, as well as those of the parliamentary democratic process. I cannot think of anybody better placed to come up with trenchant and closely reasoned recommendations, and I look forward to receiving them. We will all want to read them and consider them in depth.

We will have to wait and see what my right hon. Friend recommends, but I can confirm that he and I have spent time with Richard Mawrey, discussing what he saw both in Tower Hamlets and in his previous judgments—he has a track record of specialising in this area, having examined a series of these problems. Thankfully, such problems are not terribly frequent, but when they have arisen, he has been the person with the single best judicial experience in the country. We have spoken to him and, in depth, to people such as Peter Golds, whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned, so plenty of care has been taken to gather whatever information is available out there. I am sure that we all await my right hon. Friend’s report.

The hon. Gentleman’s final question was where the local righting of the ship had got to in Tower Hamlets. I have made inquiries of the Department for Communities and Local Government on where we have got to. The answer is, broadly, that huge progress has been made, but there is still further to go. I understand that the council has made some progress on key areas in its best value action plan—on procurement, property disposals, and elections management—and has made particular progress since the arrival of Mayor Biggs last June and the new chief executive officer, Will Tuckley, in October. There are still concerns, however, about delays in other intervention areas, particularly in respect of grants, communications and organisational and cultural changes, some of which take longer to bed in than others. Progress in those areas will need to be continued, as will close monitoring by the commissioners to make sure that the progress made is not eroded and does not start to flag.

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will continue to monitor the position very closely and will not consider any variation to the current directions until there is sufficient evidence that the change has been deeply embedded and the key outcomes delivered. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want those to be the main criteria. Given the seriousness and acuteness of the problems encountered in Tower Hamlets—he ably and lucidly summarised the worst of them, but there were many others that he did not have time to go into—I am sure that he will applaud every move to make sure that there is no prospect of a recurrence, and that those standards are fully met before we get back to the widely wished-for normality in the electoral and registration arrangements there.

I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s questions. Where I have not be able to because they are the subject of ongoing investigations, he will, quite rightly—I applaud him for it—speak to the police, including the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and others. I hope that he will get the answers there that he cannot get here. If he pieces the different parts of the jigsaw together, I hope that he sees an optimistic picture, albeit one in which it cannot yet be said that the problem has been solved. At least progress has been made on a problem that is being solved, even if we have not quite reached the final destination.

Question put and agreed to.

Iraq Inquiry Report

John Penrose Excerpts

Thursday 14th April 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I start by joining the chorus of thanks to the Backbench Business Committee, to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), and to the many other hon. Members from all parts of the House—some of them have personal experience of serving our country in the armed forces—who contributed to the debate.

This issue could not be more serious or important. As colleagues from all parts of the House have said, this is about how and whether we take the country to war, and whether we have done that in the right way in the past. Even for those, like me, who were not here when the debate and votes were held, there could be no more important or serious issue for us to address. There is a thirst, not only in the Chamber but more widely across the country, for accountability, for closure, and for lessons to be learned.

I will not try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by going over the history of the war, but I will try to address the questions raised in the debate about what will happen to get the report out as soon as we reasonably can.

[Tom Brake]

Can the Minister give us an undertaking that the Government will implement any recommendations that come out of Chilcot to improve the transparency of the decision making involved before we commit the country to going to war?

[John Penrose]

It would be premature for any of us to prejudge the results of Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry, but I am certain that everyone—Members on both sides of the House and others more broadly—will look extremely carefully at the conclusions. I am sure that there will be a great many lessons to be learned.

In line with the timetable set out by Sir John Chilcot in his letter to the Prime Minister last October, to which a number of colleagues from all parts of the House have referred, we expect the inquiry’s report to be ready for national security checking in the week beginning 18 April—that is, some time next week. Once Sir John indicates that that is the case, the work will begin. As the Prime Minister promised, it will take no longer than two weeks.

Once that is done, the inquiry team will prepare the report for printing and publication. I should make it clear that at that stage, even when the national security checking process is complete, the report will still be in Sir John Chilcot’s hands and will not be released to the Government until everything is ready. The inquiry team has said that it will complete the remaining work as swiftly as possible, and Sir John Chilcot indicated in his letter to the Prime Minister last October that he expects publication in June or July this year.

I would like to reassure colleagues by providing a little more detail on what national security checking involves, because a number of concerns have been raised about what might or might not happen in that process. National security checking is a legal obligation and a well-established standard process for inquiries that consider sensitive material. It has been used in extremely sensitive reports, including those of the inquiries into Finucane, Bloody Sunday, Billy Wright and Rosemary Nelson, to name just a few. I am sure everyone will agree that the report must not compromise national security or breach article 2 of the European convention on human rights by putting the safety of individuals at risk. It is a limited process with a narrowly defined remit focused solely on ensuring that the inquiry’s report does not put lives at risk.

By making those extremely narrow and clear terms of reference public, I want to reassure everybody, in Parliament and elsewhere, that the process will not and cannot be used to redact or censor material that does not need to be secret, or that might prove embarrassing to Ministers or officials from the time covered by the inquiry. I am also pleased to inform the House that I understand that the inquiry team expects to announce a firmer publication date soon after the national security checking process is complete. That may answer some of the concerns raised by Members from all parts of the House.

Sir John made it clear in his letter to the Prime Minister that he needs to complete several further steps after security checking before he can hand the final version to the Government for publishing. As the House will be aware, the report is very large, with over two million words—about three or four times the size of “War and Peace”—and it will be accompanied by many hundreds of documents. I am told that, because of its size, it will take a number of weeks to prepare it for publication. That matter is under Sir John’s control. Sir John and his team have promised that they will complete the work as swiftly as possible.

I should also reassure the House that I have checked with senior officials in the Cabinet Office and been assured that nothing in the rules of purdah for the EU referendum could provide a reason to delay the publication of Sir John’s report once he delivers it to the Government. We will therefore publish the report as soon as it is delivered to us in its final form by the inquiry team, whenever that may be.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his assistance on this matter. The problem is whether Sir John Chilcot will push that through. Has the work that needs to be done to create such a large piece of work been done? In other words, will the only delay be to allow the Prime Minister to examine the report, or will there be further delays?

[John Penrose]

I am trying to make it clear that the Prime Minister made a pledge that the Government’s contribution—the national security checking—will be done in two weeks or less, and we will deliver on our pledge. At that point, we will not have control of the report; it will still be in Sir John’s hands. He will need to complete the work. I am sure he will have listened to the tone and tenor of this debate, and he will understand the thirst to see the results of his work, given the frustration at its taking so long. However, we are in his hands—the report, quite rightly, is an independent one, and it needs to be objective and independent of Government—as to the work that remains to be done. From the Government’s point of view, I can say that we promised to get the security checking done within two weeks, and we will.

I want to provide reassurance to my many colleagues on both sides of the House who I know have concerns about the interests of the families of service personnel killed or injured in the war. We will discuss these issues with the inquiry once national security checking is completed, but I understand that the inquiry will make suitable arrangements for families around the date of publication.

In conclusion, I am grateful to all right hon. Members, hon. Members and gallant Members who have contributed to this debate. I think we agree on the need for the report to be published as soon as possible. I am also sure that we all appreciate the wish of the families involved to understand why and how certain decisions were taken, and for us to learn any lessons that need to be learned. This inquiry has looked at complex events, over a nine-year period, that evoke strong feelings on all sides of the political debate. I am sure we all agree that it is vital that the inquiry completes its work to the timetable Sir John Chilcot laid out in his letter to the Prime Minister last October. We will then, at last, have the fully independent, heavyweight, evidence-based report that events of such importance demand. Parliament, the families of service personnel killed and injured in the war, and the country as a whole deserve nothing less.

EU Referendum (Counting Officers’ Regulations)

John Penrose Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Written Statements

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

The Cabinet Office wishes to report the entry into force today of the European Union Referendum (Counting Officers’ and Regional Counting Officers’ Charges) Regulations 2016. The regulations are the final piece of legislation which, taken together, confirm the arrangements for the referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union.

The EU Referendum Act 2015 provides for a referendum to take place on the UK’s membership of the EU. The British people will be asked on 23 June, for the first time in 40 years, whether or not they want to stay in the EU. This is a concrete step towards settling the debate about the UK’s membership of the EU.

The estimated cost of conducting the referendum is £142.4 million. This includes the expenses incurred by counting officers in running the poll, grants to the designated lead campaign organisations, the delivery by Royal Mail of campaign mailings from those organisations, and the cost of the central count. These costs have been discussed and agreed with the Electoral Commission. It is important that counting officers and the Electoral Commission have the resources necessary to conduct the referendum effectively and efficiently.

The European Union Referendum (Counting Officers’ and Regional Counting Officers’ Charges) Regulations 2016 set the maximum recoverable amounts for the services and expenses of counting officers and regional counting officers. The regulations therefore provide counting officers with certainty regarding their allocations, enabling them to plan with confidence for delivery of the poll.

[HCWS648]

Electoral Law

John Penrose Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Written Statements

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

It is a long-standing feature of electoral law that if third parties wish to engage in campaigning at an election, they should report their expenditure to ensure transparency, and that there should be spending limits on that expenditure to ensure a fair and level playing field and prevent undue influence.

Part 2 of the coalition Government’s Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 amended those limits to stop third parties engaging in “distorting” activity during elections; updated the definition of controlled expenditure to include canvassing, events and rallies, as well as election literature; and regulated how spending was applied in individual parliamentary constituencies.

The Government continue to believe that the legislation is a necessary check and balance to ensure free and fair elections, and open and accountable campaigning at elections. The checks just ensure not just fairness for political parties’ candidates, but also between rival third parties—especially on strongly contentious topics.

At the 2015 general election, 68 organisations were registered with the Electoral Commission as third party campaigners. Organisations that spent money campaigning at the general election included the likes of trade unions, the National Union of Students, the Campaign for British Influence in Europe, 38 Degrees, London First and CND.

As required by section 39 of the Act, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts was appointed last year to conduct a review of the operation of third party campaigning provisions, in relation to the 2015 general election. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has today laid Lord Hodgson’s report before Parliament.

The Government are grateful to Lord Hodgson for his comprehensive and balanced report. We are pleased that he recognises the need for effective regulation of those campaigning at general elections to prevent undue influence and the need for transparency about who third party campaigners are and what they are spending.

The package of recommendations proposes tightening some rules and relaxing others. For example, it suggests ending the exclusion for supporters (as opposed to members) of an organisation and requiring campaigners at an election to register with the Electoral Commission if they intend to spend more than £5,000 in any one constituency. It also recommends that campaigners should provide more detailed information about the political issues on which they are campaigning, which would be published by the Electoral Commission. Equally, it advocates clearer guidance by the Electoral Commission to address some misunderstandings about the actual provisions of the legislation.

We will now carefully consider the package of proposals. Some involve changes to the existing regulatory regime, some changes to primary legislation and some are recommendations to the Electoral Commission.

It can also be viewed online at:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-03-17/HCWS627.

[HCWS627]

Local Government: Ethical Procurement

John Penrose Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burden]

I have no idea about that, but if the hon. Lady thinks this is not a very significant public procurement note that merits parliamentary scrutiny, I wonder why the Minister for the Cabinet Office took the trouble of announcing it in a press conference with the Prime Minister of Israel on 17 February.

On 16 December, I asked the Secretary of State for International Development whether she agreed with the Foreign Office that it was perfectly reasonable for both public and private institutions to pay due regard to that Foreign Office advice when they make their own investment and procurement decisions. Her answer was unequivocal. She said:

“They should do that; that is good Foreign Office advice.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 1534.]

So my first question to the Minister is this: were civil servants consulted at all before the press release was issued at the Conservative party conference? I am happy to give way to him if he has a reply.

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

I was planning to wait until the end and collect what I am sure will be a whole series of questions. Perhaps that will allow me to wrap them all up together in a series of responses.

[Richard Burden]

I am very happy for that to happen. I give the Minister notice that there will be six questions on which I am seeking answers.

Did Ministers really take the view that public institutions should not have the same rights and concerns as private institutions when it comes to good business practice and corporate social responsibility? What was it that Ministers were trying to outlaw? The public procurement note published on 17 February appears to suggest much less than the Conservative press release of October; it appears to say that institutions should not impose a blanket ban on contracts with companies on the basis of the nationality of the companies concerned, in line with existing EU and World Trade Organisation rules. We know that the WTO forbids the use of quantitative restrictions, such as a ban on imports—phrased in terms of products originating in the “territory” of another WTO member.

On 9 March, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) about whether the occupied territories could be considered part of Israel, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), was absolutely clear:

“The World Trade Organisation does not define the territory of its members. The UK does not recognise Israeli sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. We therefore do not consider the Occupied Palestinian Territories to be part of Israel.”

So my second question to the Minister is this: is there anything in this public procurement notice or that is intended by the Government that in any way changes that?

European Union rules are also mentioned in the public procurement notice. They allow public institutions, on a case-by-case basis, to exclude companies from tenders on the basis of their behaviour, specifically where grave misconduct may be involved. What could that mean? Let us turn again to the Government’s own documents—to their 2013 national action plan on implementing the UN guiding principles on human rights and business. An extract from that states that the UK Government

“are committed to ensuring that in UK Government procurement human rights related matters are reflected appropriately when purchasing goods, works and services. Under the public procurement rules public bodies may exclude tenderers from bidding for a contract opportunity in certain circumstances, including where there is information showing grave misconduct by a company in the course of its business or profession. Such misconduct might arise in cases where there are breaches of human rights.”

My third question to the Minister is therefore this: does the February 2016 public procurement note in any way change or add to that advice?

My fourth question is about whether the Minister considers that a breach of the fourth Geneva convention is a breach of human rights. If he does, would the public procurement note restrict a public institution from resolving not to deal with a company that was involved in aiding and abetting breaches of that convention?

If the public procurement note is prompting these and more questions, so, too, are the changes that the Cabinet Office says it is going to introduce in relation to investment decisions of local government pension funds. So my fifth question is this: pension fund trustees are already covered by a fiduciary duty, but will the changes being introduced in any way fetter the judgments that they make in line with that fiduciary duty in relation to, say, not investing in fossil fuels, tobacco or the arms trade?

My sixth question logically follows from that: in order to be clear on these points, will the Minister outline what plans he has for parliamentary scrutiny of these changes to pension fund guidance? Specifically, will he commit to consulting on any draft guidance he intends to issue in respect of local government pension scheme investments before it is published and before Parliament, through whatever procedure, is asked to make any kind of decision on these changes?

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is always good to have your sure hand guiding our proceedings, Mr Streeter. I start by joining the chorus of congratulations to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on securing this debate. He is right that this is an important issue. He is also right to say what it is about and what it is not about, and to acknowledge that there are sincerely held views on both sides of the broader issue. He is right to put that point up front and pay it due respect. I echo those points.

As the hon. Gentleman has asked some distinct questions, and other questions have embroidered around them, I will try to address those questions as I go through my speech. I am sure he will pick me up if I do not. I will try to make sure that he has a minute or so at the end to sum up.

[Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Penrose]

Briefly, but I will then have to make progress.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

At the beginning of his comments, will the Minister clarify an important point of fact, which is the kernel of this issue? Will the Government’s proposed procurement rules permit a local authority to adopt a policy against investment in, or purchase from, Israeli settlements in the Palestinian west bank?

[John Penrose]

The answer is that it depends; I am sorry to be a little indistinct. I will come on to the details. I hope to give my right hon. Friend a proper answer, rather than just a straightforward yes or no, because there are situations where councils will be able to and situations where they will not.

The overarching principles behind public procurement are twofold. First, public sector procurers are required to seek the very best value for money for the taxpayer. Secondly, public procurement must be delivered through fair and open competition. Public sector procurers have to follow detailed procedural rules laid down in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which implement the Government’s domestic procurement policy and wider EU and international rules, including the EU procurement directives and the WTO Government procurement agreement; a number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the GPA in this debate.

Under those obligations, our contracting authorities are required to treat all suppliers equally, regardless of their geographic origin. The regulations have recently been updated and modernised, but the basic principles are long-standing and have been in place for many decades. Any breach of the rules puts public authorities and the Government themselves at risk of breaching all sorts of laws. Serious remedies are available to aggrieved suppliers through the courts for breaches of those rules, including damages, fines and what lawyers call “ineffectiveness”, which basically means contract cancellation.

A number of colleagues have mentioned that ethical procurement has a much wider meaning than we have focused on here. We could talk about it in relation to arms firms, defence industry investment or investment in the tobacco industry. However, we have focused, perhaps understandably, on a specific example. The point is that “ethical procurement” is not a defined term—it means different things. There are many examples of how procurers take ethical considerations into account. For example, the rules allow authorities to exclude suppliers that have breached certain international social, environmental or labour laws. In addition, we already ensure that prime contractors behave ethically towards their subcontractors—for example, by requiring 30-day payment terms. That applies through supply chains, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said.

The Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, which came into effect in 2013, placed a requirement on commissioners to consider the economic, environmental and social benefits of their approaches to procurement before the process starts.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

In that case, is there anything in the Minister’s list that includes the illegal origin of the products to be bought?

[John Penrose]

The point is that although we are clear that the settlements themselves are absolutely illegal—I am happy to clarify the Government’s foreign policy—that does not necessarily mean that activities undertaken by firms that happen to be based there are themselves automatically illegal. A separate, case-by-case decision must be made about whether each potential supplier satisfies the rules. I will give more detail about that as I go, if I can.

We have flexibilities in our procurement rules. Some things are explicitly ruled out—

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Penrose]

I am running out of time. I will give way very briefly, and then I will have to make progress.

[Mr Betts]

We are back to the point about how to distinguish between one activity of an organisation and another when deciding whether to have a relationship with it. To go back to banks, for example, it was rightly decided not to have any dealings with Barclays back in the 1980s because of its particular link with South Africa. One could not distinguish between the money it lent to South African firms and the money that it lent to other firms. How then does the Minister distinguish between the activities of financial organisations now and their treatment of the settlements?

[John Penrose]

I am explaining how the law is, rather than how the hon. Gentleman might like it to be. As I said, we are clear that the settlements themselves are illegal, but a firm based or trading within one of those settlements may be operating in an entirely whiter-than-white, above-board fashion in how it treats its suppliers, staff and customers. Therefore, I suggest, one cannot assume that absolutely everything done in a particular place is implicitly wrong.

There are flexibilities in our procurement rules. Some things are explicitly ruled out. Discrimination is absolutely ruled out as a matter of law and policy. The problem with boycotts in public procurement is that they may often stray over the line from acceptable ethical procurement within the rules that I have described to become an act of discrimination. The principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment underpin the UK’s whole approach to public procurement policy—we have heard examples of that from other speeches already—and are mandatory under UK, EU and World Trade Organisation procurement rules.

Moreover, public policy that includes decisions on whether to impose Government sanctions on other countries is a matter reserved for central Government. We are devolving a great deal down to local government and other Parliaments within the UK, but foreign policy, particularly sanctions against other countries, is a matter still reserved for central Government. It is therefore the Government’s position that discriminating against any supplier based on geographic location is unacceptable unless formal, legal sanctions, embargoes or restrictions have been put in place by the UK Government here.

Despite those long-standing rules, we have been concerned to learn that some authorities have decided to impose local-level procurement boycotts, which is why on 17 February, as we have heard, the Government published guidance to remind authorities of their obligations in that respect. I hasten to add that it is not an Israel-specific policy, nor is it focused on the Israeli settlements, in line with the initial remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield. It is general guidance about procurement principles, so it does not address directly or in detail any questions about procuring from Israel or the illegal settlements. The Minister for the Cabinet Office highlighted the guidance when visiting some technology companies during his trip to Israel to reassure them that the UK Government marketplace is open to overseas bidders, despite what they might have read elsewhere.

Of course, the WTO Government procurement agreement has its limitations. It applies only to countries that have signed up to it. Israel is a party to it, so it clearly applies to Israeli suppliers, whereas the Government do not recognise the illegal settlements as part of Israel.

[Imran Hussain]

I should have declared an interest earlier: I recently visited the west bank with colleagues and Medical Aid for Palestine. I am grateful to the Minister for his somewhat grey explanation of certain areas, but can he help me with this point, with which I am sure other hon. Members will agree? He has accepted that the settlements are illegal. On what basis, legal or otherwise, is he asserting that the businesses operating within those illegal settlements are operating legally? Can he explain that to me, please?

[John Penrose]

I believe I already have. Although it is difficult, it is entirely possible for a settlement to be illegal while the businesses operating within it are entirely within the law, treating their staff, suppliers and customers properly and so on. It is possible for both those things to happen at once.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Penrose]

I must make progress. In spite of those flexibilities, local authorities must still be careful not to make discriminatory policies even where they believe that the GPA does not apply. The rules also provide mechanisms to protect authorities from dealing with risky suppliers.

To answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), I should say that authorities can take into account the legal and economic risks of dealing with particular suppliers. The rules include various grounds on which individual suppliers can be excluded from bidding, such as where the company is guilty of criminal offences, corruption or grave professional misconduct or in breach of environmental, social or labour laws and so forth. This is a key point: the rules must be applied on a case-by-case basis, company by company, rather than on the basis of an entire geographical area, as a blanket ban or boycott would inevitably do—that would make them discriminatory.

Local authorities have significant flexibilities and can exercise pretty wide discretion within the rules—I hope that I am answering my right hon. Friend’s question—but the rules themselves are clearly necessary to protect them by ensuring that they do not take actions that could land them and us in court. Nobody wants to waste public money on costly court cases.

I am running out of time, so I will stop to allow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield time to respond, but I emphasise that on foreign policy, we have clearly not changed our approach to the Palestinian occupied territories or to settlements around the pre-1967 boundaries of Israel. With that, although there are many other things that I would have liked the opportunity to address, I want to leave the hon. Gentleman a chance to respond. I will sit down and leave the floor to him.

[Richard Burden]

I always thought that public procurement notes were meant to clarify procurement rules, but the Minister has just demonstrated the art of muddying them through his explanation of this procurement note. He said that the note is not Israel-specific; it just happens that the Minister for the Cabinet Office announced it in a Conservative party conference press release that was almost entirely devoted to the situation in the middle east, and then announced the public procurement note itself in Israel.

If settlements are illegal, I fail to see how trade with those settlements and co-operation with businesses involved in aiding and abetting illegality is not itself illegal. That is what the Foreign Office advice to business is about. I know that the Minister has had a problem today; for some time now, we have been trying to work out which Minister would reply to this debate. I get the impression that this is a parcel that has been passed from pillar to post.

[John Penrose]

We are a flexible team.

[Richard Burden]

Eminently flexible—with flexible rules as well, by the sound of it. My six questions have not been answered to my satisfaction, nor have the questions asked by other hon. Members. I ask the Minister to answer in writing.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Contingencies Fund

John Penrose Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Written Statements

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

The Cabinet Office wishes to report that a cash advance from the Contingencies Fund has been sought for the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (referred to as the “Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration” in the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and the “Health Service Commissioner” in the Health Services Commissioners Act 1993).

The advance has been sought to meet a cash requirement resulting from planned expenditure set out in supplementary estimates. As authority for the cash will not be granted until March with the passage of the Supply and Appropriation Act, and the ombudsman has to settle some bills before then, a Contingencies Fund advance has been requested.

Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £801,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner for England. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £801,000 will be met by repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund.

[HCWS564]

DRAFT NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES (REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2016 DRAFT NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES (REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) ORDER 2016 DRAFT POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2016

John Penrose Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2016.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2016 and the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Amendment) Order 2016.

[John Penrose]

It is good to have you in the Chair, Mr Howarth, guiding us with a deft touch as always. It is a wonderful coincidence of, I am sure, intentional parliamentary scheduling to have a statutory instrument about Welsh elections on St David’s day. I begin with an abject apology to the rest of the Committee for not sporting a leek or a daffodil. With a Celtic name like Penrose, I thought I would be pushing my luck as a Cornishman by turning up wearing Welsh apparel. Points of order would have been raised and all sorts of terrible things, but I am with everybody in sympathy at least.

These rules are a vital but, I hope, uncontroversial and rather humdrum piece of electoral plumbing. In this country, we often take it for granted that elections will be run professionally and efficiently by high-quality electoral administrators, but to run smoothly the system depends on detailed legislation such as the orders before us.

The draft orders make changes to the rules for the administration and conduct of elections to the National Assembly for Wales and of police and crime commissioners. In particular, they make provision for the combination of polls at Welsh Assembly and PCC elections when they are held on the same day. They also apply provisions in the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 and associated secondary legislation, which makes a number of changes to the rules for UK parliamentary elections, to Welsh Assembly elections as well.

All three draft orders are similar to measures that have been considered in earlier debates on the conduct of other elections and referendums. The changes have already been made to the PCC elections in a previous instrument that was considered and approved in an earlier Committee sitting. We have consulted on the instruments with the Electoral Commission and with other stakeholders such as the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Welsh Government, and we have incorporated many or all of their conclusions and proposals in the draft orders.

The draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2016 requires a poll at an Assembly election to be combined with a poll at a PCC election when both polls are held on the same day, as will happen on 5 May 2016. The order therefore designates the constituency returning officer at the Assembly election as the lead returning officer when an ordinary Assembly election is combined with an ordinary PCC election. It ensures that voters will cast their vote at the same polling station for both polls and that a different coloured ballot paper is used for each poll. Returning officers will be able to issue a single poll card and may issue to postal voters one postal ballot pack with two different sets of voting papers inside instead of two separate packs for each election.

The order updates the forms used by voters, such as poll cards and postal voting statements, to make the voting process more accessible, and includes Welsh language versions of the forms. The order provides for names of candidates to appear on the ballot paper for the election of regional members; for police community support officers to enter polling stations and counting venues under the same conditions as police constables; and that voters waiting in a queue at the close of poll can still vote. It also brings postal voting in Welsh Assembly elections in line with other elections elsewhere in the UK.

In response to a recommendation by the Electoral Commission, the order increases the spending limits for candidates at Assembly elections to take account of the effects of inflation, which means that the maximum amount that candidates standing in an Assembly constituency may spend is increased from £7,150 to £8,700 as well as an additional 9p, up from 7p, for every elector in a county constituency and an additional 6p, up from 5p, for every elector in a borough constituency.

Following a recommendation by the Electoral Commission, the order provides for a fee for a returning officer at an Assembly election to be reduced if they have performed inadequately at the election. That mirrors equivalent provision made for UK parliamentary elections in the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013.

The second order simply corrects errors that appeared in the Welsh language sections of some of the forms set out in the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2016. [Interruption.] I hear tutting from the Labour Front Bench. I am sure that the hon. Member for Caerphilly will put right any interpretations in the language of heaven that are needed when he makes his contribution.

The third order complements the Assembly order by making equivalent changes to the rules for PCC elections held on the same day as Assembly polls. It also provides that when PCC and Assembly elections are combined, the voting areas for the purposes of the PCC election in Wales are Assembly constituencies rather than local authority areas. That ensures that both polls are administered on the ground using the same area—Assembly constituencies—and a single returning officer. For the PCC poll, the returning officer for a voting area will be the local returning officer who is the constituency returning officer for the Assembly constituency. The Electoral Commission and electoral administrators in Wales specifically requested that we aligned the voting areas in that way to help the effective running of the combined polls. The commission commented that the change reflected its view and that of returning officers in Wales, and it prevents a potential risk to the effective administration of the election.

I believe and hope that the changes in the orders concerning the conduct and administration of the two sets of polls will help to increase voter participation, support the integrity of our electoral system and ensure that the polls scheduled for May 2016 are run effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I will happily respond to the hon. Gentleman’s points, taking each of them in turn. First, however, I want to welcome the general support with which he finished his remarks. It is welcome to hear that the proposals have cross-party support. I was hoping—indeed, he has confirmed it—that this would be an uncontroversial piece of important electoral plumbing and that there would be no need to find party political differences in it.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that turnout at the first police and crime commissioner elections was relatively low. He and I are both hoping for a dramatically higher turnout this time. I agree with him that the omens are propitious and positive, partly because, as he says, the elections will be held in May, which is usually reckoned to be a better time of year, but also because other elections are taking place on the same day. Given the overlap with other elections, there may be occasional concerns about complexity, but there is no doubt that it can also help to drive up turnout. I hope that democrats on all sides of different political divides will want to see a better turnout than last time at polling stations in early May. I obviously cannot comment on whether the Cabinet Office will do a better job of electoral administration than the Home Office, as the hon. Gentleman kindly suggested, so we shall have to wait and see. With any luck it will be a step in the right direction.

The hon. Gentleman then talked about some risks—as opposed to serious issues—that were flagged up by the Electoral Commission, particularly in relation to the three different forms of voting being used on the same day. There are two varying forms of alternative or proportional voting and one more traditional first-past-the-post system. He is absolutely right that there is always the potential for confusion, but when we have combined polls in all parts of the UK, in practice we tend to see that voters are pretty canny and capable of coping. Providing that the electoral administration is done in such a way as to have separate ballot papers for each election—most commonly the ballot papers are of different colours—that allows voters to draw a mental distinction between the one, two or three different polls on the same day and to politically and intellectually change gear, as it were, as they fill out one and then move on to the next.

The only time we have had serious concerns about that sort of thing was in Scotland back in 2007, when there was an attempt to combine some ballot papers. That created some concerns but, broadly speaking, electors seem to be capable of coping pretty well. One would obviously not want to push the point too far, but we are not expecting the different elections to be a major problem on this occasion.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned voting errors. I did mention in my speech the point about electoral administration, but it bears repeating. The instrument provides that where PCC and Assembly elections are combined in the voting areas, the polls for the PCC election will be administered on the ground using the same voting area—that is, the Assembly constituencies—and by a single returning officer. That is a crucial point. The returning officer for a voting area will be the local returning officer for the PCC poll, who is the returning officer for the Assembly constituency. I hope that means that the administration is a great deal clearer and that lines of accountability and responsibility are very clear indeed. The arrangement directly matches the recommendations of both the Electoral Commission and the electoral administrators in Wales. I hope that has maximised our chances of success and clarity on that point.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned concerns about Welsh language forms. As I said, there was a great deal of concern last time when problems were discovered with the accuracy of the translation of Welsh language forms. I can confirm that two things have happened since then. First, additional checks are now in place to ensure that such a thing is much less likely to happen—it was not terribly likely in the first place, but it is even less likely now. Secondly, as I think the hon. Gentleman mentioned, electoral administration is one of the matters that will be devolved when the Wales Bill has passed through Parliament and become the Wales Act, so this might be the very last time we have to debate the issue in this place; in future it will be dealt with by the Welsh Government in Cardiff.

[Wayne David]

I very much hope that such matters can be dealt with by the Assembly in Cardiff, but over the past few days things have moved on, with the Secretary of State indicating that his own draft Bill is not fit for purpose and going back to the drawing board. It might be quite a while before we have such a Bill before us.

[John Penrose]

I hesitate to put words in his mouth—I am sort of paraphrasing—but I think that the Secretary of State said that the Bill would none the less be reintroduced in the second Session of this Parliament, so the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait too long. If he can possess his soul in patience, I hope that he, and everybody else who is in favour of devolution—I hope that is everybody—will be reassured and will look forward to the result.

The hon. Gentleman asked a rather technical question about the running of the poll in the Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney constituency. I have been searching for inspiration and will now assay an answer for him—we will see how it goes. He is absolutely right to say that the constituency is the only one to cross a police area boundary. The PCC order amends the definition of voting area for PCC elections where they are combined with Assembly elections so that both sets of elections can be administered on the basis of the same voting area—that is, Welsh Assembly constituencies, as I was just reminding the Committee—by a single returning officer. That will facilitate the running of the polls.

The Electoral Commission also issues guidance to returning officers to help them in their planning for the poll and to carry out their duties. I am sure that the commission will be able to give specific help to the administrators running the poll in that constituency, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it will perhaps require some special focus and some special guidelines or guidance to ensure that it is done cleanly and effectively.

I hope that I have covered all the questions and provided everybody with answers. With that, I commend all three orders to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES (REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) ORDER 2016

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2016.—(John Penrose.)

DRAFT POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2016

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Amendment) Order 2016.—(John Penrose.)

Overseas Voters Bill

John Penrose Excerpts

Friday 26th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

As with a lot of these things, there is no precise answer to my hon. Friend’s very good question, but the estimate is probably that 5 million and upwards would be eligible, and I see my hon. Friend the Minister nodding.

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

Just to clarify, the figures are a little unclear, as my hon. Friend says. It looks as though about 2 million may be eligible to vote at the moment, and another 3 million or 4 million on top of that might be enfranchised were we to get rid of the 15-year rule in due course. However, as I suggested, all figures should be treated with a degree of caution, because this is so uncertain.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. What he is saying is that, of the 2 million who are eligible at the moment, we registered only 100,000, and many fewer than that actually voted. There is potentially a pool of a lot more who could be registered if the Bill went through and we were able to allow all British citizens living overseas to participate in our democracy.

That, of course, is what happens in a lot of other countries. Some of those countries organise—indeed, facilitate—voting by their overseas citizens at embassies, consulates and other such places. In the recent Turkish elections, the President of Turkey, in a neutral capacity, spent a lot of time visiting other countries in Europe—mainly countries with a significant number of Turkish expatriates—to speak directly to them to encourage them to participate in the election.

So what would be the benefit of this? Apart from the benefit to democracy, it would assist in campaigns such as one that I very strongly support, which is the campaign for an end to the discrimination against British pensioners living overseas. It would mean that those who are campaigning to ensure that there is equal treatment between British pensioners living overseas and those living in the United Kingdom would have more clout. At the moment, there are a handful of these people in each constituency able to vote, and they cannot really make a difference in the general election, but if more of them were eligible to vote, and did vote, they would be able to lobby much more effectively and we might find that the Government were more responsive to their concerns than they seem to be at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

The Labour party’s position is that we would like to investigate the potential for that. As I have just said, it is important to remember that people have busy lives and they work. As well as online voting, there are other options that we would like to look at, which could play a major role. We have to try to open it up. Perhaps we need to look at polling day. Why is it on a Thursday from 7 am until 10 pm? How long has that been the case? It is generally accepted across the Chamber that we need to look at more innovative ways to encourage people—whether overseas or in this country—to vote and to take part in the democratic process. I do not think the hon. Gentleman and I are too far apart on those issues. It is perhaps, as I mentioned to the hon. Member for Christchurch, just a case of why one should be a priority and others not.

We need to look at the question collectively and try to come up with a way to encourage people to get out there and vote. As politicians, that is really what we want. There are 5.5 million British citizens living abroad, and I think the hon. Gentleman said that only 100,000 of them were registered to vote. To be honest, the figure that I have is 20,000, so it was news to me that that number had somehow multiplied by five. I am encouraged by that, but we need to encourage people into the process, and we can do that together across parties.

[John Penrose]

On a point of clarification, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the figure was closer to 20,000 about a year or a year and a half ago, before the last general election. In the run-up to the last general election, a huge effort was made to drive up the level of overseas registration, and it was pretty successful. The trouble was that we went from an absurdly low number to a pathetically low number. We are still only on about 5% of those who are eligible to vote. The figure is massively better and we should celebrate it, but we still have a heck of a long way to go.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank the Minister for that point of clarification. I thought I had got my figures wrong. We have, as the Minister correctly points out, some way to go. That is the case not just overseas, but here in the UK. Millions of people who are eligible to vote are not even registered. It is an electoral crisis, and we need cross-party agreement on how we can deliver something much more democratic than what we have at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

Hedgehogs overseas will not be eligible for registration, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) is committed to the issue of overseas voter registration, as I am. He will share my shock, on behalf of our constituents, at the figures that have been revealed to the House today. Will the Minister be kind enough to intervene on me in a moment to give us the total number of electors in this country, so that we can establish the proportion represented by the 6 million potential overseas voters as a percentage of the total UK electorate?

[John Penrose]

I think the figure is roughly 44 million. If I get more precise divine inspiration, I may help my hon. Friend out a little more, but it is that sort of ballpark figure.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am most grateful for that intervention, and that is the sort of figure that I had in mind. We are now aware that there are potentially 6 million British voters, in addition to the 44 million who are currently registered, who could take part in UK general elections but who are unable to do so because they are not registered. That is a shockingly large figure, and I am surprised that the Government are not giving the issue more priority. Surely, with our traditions of empire and of spreading good government and democracy around the world, we would at the very least want to encourage those 6 million British citizens who are living abroad to retain their franchise in this country and their ability to participate democratically in the future of what is still their nation. I think the nation would be very surprised by the fact that there are 6 million people living abroad whom most of us would like to take part in UK elections.

Clause 1 of this excellent Bill would enable those 6 million British citizens to take part only in

“United Kingdom Parliamentary elections if they were registered to vote”.

Although the provision is fantastic, I would want to take it further. It seems to me that it is important that British citizens living abroad should be able to take part in local government and mayoral elections if they want to do so. At the moment, an EU citizen living in this country quite rightly cannot take part in UK parliamentary elections, or at least they cannot do so yet—that may change if we decide to remain in the European Union—but they can take part in local government elections. It seems to me that British citizens, whether they live in this country or abroad, should be able to participate in all elections at every level of the democratic franchise. If I had the good fortune to end up on the Public Bill Committee, I would seek to amend clause 1(a) to extend the franchise to local government elections.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I join in the chorus of congratulations for my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on introducing the Bill. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) that it is not necessarily premature. I prefer the adjectives “forward-thinking” and “far-sighted”, if I may put it that way, because my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is absolutely right to observe that it was a manifesto commitment at the recent general election.

My hon. Friend is therefore heading in a direction that we would wholeheartedly endorse. I will take issue with the details of how he proposes to do it—I have concerns about the practicalities—but we are absolutely on the same page about the principle and about not dilly-dallying and shilly-shallying, or generally not according it a high priority. I want to reassure him that a great deal of work is going on at the moment. I can tell him that parliamentary draftsmen are even now beavering away at high speed on a Bill with all sorts of different possible working titles, including the overseas electors Bill and the overseas voters Bill. We are definitely not hanging around; we are moving forward with it. As he will appreciate—he will be more aware of this than most, having introduced this private Member’s Bill—many important details need to be got right if we are to enfranchise this important group. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering is quite right to observe that this is a tremendously important extension of our franchise that will in many cases extend democratic rights to those whom people would think or expect to have the vote.

I should say up front that I was delighted to hear that the Labour party is very happy at least to consider, and has no objection to reviewing, the question of whether the rule should be set at 15 years. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) is absolutely right to observe that other countries set that time limit at different points. In fact, our country has set it at different dates in the past, so there is not necessarily a right or a wrong moment. The figure of 15 years is quite arbitrary, so I am encouraged by the fact that he is willing to participate constructively in a review.

[Oliver Colvile]

I thank my hon. Friend for saying that the Government wish to introduce such a Bill, but what is his timetable for producing legislation that might support much of what our hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is proposing?

[John Penrose]

I am afraid that I must fall back on the response “in due course”, to use that timeworn parliamentary phrase, rather than give my hon. Friend a firm date. However, I assure him that work is going on right now and that we are not hanging around. I will have to leave it at that, but I hope to be able to provide further clarity—in due course.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am enjoying the Minister’s speech hugely and I am encouraged by what he has said so far. Will he do the House a service by placing the 15-year limit in context? We have not yet heard where it comes from, who imposed it and why. There is growing consensus that it needs to be abolished.

[John Penrose]

As the hon. Member for Wansbeck acknowledged, the 15-year rule is a bit of a hybrid. The limit has been as low as five years and as high as 20 years. Successive Governments have extended it or narrowed it over time. I do not want to be too specific about its history. The point behind the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering is that, because the line has been moved about several times under successive Governments, it is inherently arbitrary to choose a particular length of time that people have been away. The Government made a manifesto commitment to enfranchise all British citizens, no matter how long they have been abroad, because we think that choosing 15 years, as opposed to 14 or 16 years, is inherently like sticking a dart in a dartboard. We need to say that if British citizens maintain British citizenship that brings with it rights, obligations and a connection with this country, and that that should endure.

I am encouraged by the Labour party’s view. I welcome the fact that it is willing to embark on a review of the 15-year rule. I also welcome the hon. Member for Wansbeck’s comments about the need for a cross-party approach to driving up registration among all under-represented groups, regardless of where they live—whether they are resident in the UK or abroad. He is absolutely right to point out that there are a succession of groups who are less represented and less registered than others. His colleague, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), wrote to me recently about students. They are one of the less well-represented groups. Some black and minority ethnic communities are also less well represented. Ex-patriots are the worst of all in terms of the percentage of rates of registration—down at about 5%, as we have heard from earlier speeches. They are probably the least well represented of all the under-represented groups.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and others made the point that we cannot—we would all, as politicians or democrats, be diminished if we did—proceed purely on the basis of narrow party political advantage. It is far better, as the hon. Member for Wansbeck observed, to proceed on the basis of what is right for democracy. We must proceed on a cross-party basis without working out which particular groups might be more likely to favour his party or mine. If we all drive up registration in all groups on that basis, we will improve our democratic credentials and reduce voter cynicism very dramatically. That cynicism is perhaps one of the more corrosive influences not just in reducing levels of voter registration but levels of voter turnout—people who are registered but choose not to exercise their vote. We are all familiar with that problem, and cynicism about politics, the political process and politicians is a key driver of it.

One thing we are trying to do, in improving both the registration process and the reasons for encouraging people to register, is to make registration more convenient, simpler, easier, cheaper and more efficient—what we call the plumbing of registration. We want to make it less of a hassle to get registered.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Will the Minister confirm to the House that he is not looking at the possibility of introducing an Australian-type requirement that people have to vote?

[John Penrose]

I am happy to confirm that to my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. That has not been part of our democratic tradition in this country. It could, of course, be decided and introduced after debate, but it was not in our party’s manifesto and it is not part of our current plans.

[Mr Hollobone]

On registration, a point I have made many times—it fell on deaf ears in the coalition Government; I hope that will not be the case today—is that those in almost all under-represented groups will have had some contact or multiple contacts with Government agencies of one sort or another, whether in relation to benefits, passports, applications for this or applications for that. Why can we not have a simple cross-governmental rule that every time somebody comes into contact with a Government agency they are asked the question, “Are you on the electoral register?” If the answer is no, they could then be told how to register.

[John Penrose]

My hon. Friend gave a good example with regard to pensions, saying that the Department for Work and Pensions will inevitably have a list of people to whom it is paying pensions. That one cogent example should therefore allow an opportunity to provide the kind of nudge he talks about. I can confirm that we have trialled a series of links on various Government website pages to do what he describes. We are currently investigating whether that can be extended more broadly across more Government services, so that any time anybody living abroad or in a domestic under-represented group comes into contact with the British state we can provide a nudge for them to get registered. We are looking at that extremely carefully, as it seems like it could be a very sensible way of proceeding. It may not be the whole answer—in some cases it may not be a very effective answer and in others it may be highly effective—but it is certainly something we want to pursue.

[Oliver Colvile]

As my hon. Friend may know, I represent a naval garrison city with a large military presence. How can we ensure that more military personnel are registered? I have to say that I have found registration levels to be very disappointing.

[John Penrose]

Special registration arrangements for service personnel and Crown servants are already in place. Special registration systems allow them to register in a slightly different, and I hope more convenient, way than other ex-patriots living in other parts of the world.

What we have encountered, not only in relation to service personnel and Crown servants but other ex-patriots, is that for those people living abroad who are registered to vote and have also enrolled for a postal vote, which they need to do as well, the two processes are not necessarily as linked up as they might be. They may be registered to vote but not automatically registered for a postal vote, even if they thought they were. Sometimes postal vote forms have arrived too late, depending on where they are in the world and the efficiency of the postal service. What we have tried to do more recently, therefore, is change the guidelines, in conjunction with the Electoral Commission, to ensure that postal vote forms are sent out earlier, with sufficient postage on them and so on, and that the overseas postal vote forms can in future be sent out among the earliest batches in each local constituency to make sure that the chances of them arriving in time in every part of the world are maximised. All those measures will help to drive up both registration rates and voting rates.

This issue is not just about the plumbing of registration and voting. Those things are important and I am sure we can make significant improvements to them and get more people in under-represented groups to register and, with any luck, help them to vote. This is not just about plumbing, however; it is also about poetry. There are some groups who are not registered, not because it is inconvenient or because they have not got around to it, but because they view the political process with cynicism or suspicion. Again, this is where a cross-party approach to try to enthuse, convince and persuade people that the answer to their cynicism about the way politics and the democratic process works is to get involved, not to avoid the whole process. If one party tried to do that on its own, it would be far less effective than if we joined hands. Indeed, it is not just up to politicians. We need to joins hands not just across the political spectrum but with civic society groups right the way across the spectrum. We are already doing some of those things. Incidentally, the Electoral Commission is also trying to work in this fashion, too. I welcome the Labour party’s offer of a cross-party approach. I absolutely and would dearly like to pursue that with it if I can. I have already mentioned this to the hon. Member for Wansbeck’s Opposition Front-Bench colleague. The hon. Member for Ashfield is not here today, but she and I have had conversations in the past. It is absolutely the right way to go.

The Electoral Commission understands the importance of not just the plumbing but the poetry, if I may use that analogy. For example, it announced in the course of the past week a collaboration with the writers of “Hollyoaks”. I understand—I hope I am not acting as a terrible plot-spoiler here, Mr Deputy Speaker—that they intend to blend through the storyline of that soap an encouragement to register and information about why it is important to register, how to register and so on. That is something I would hope we all support.

[Oliver Colvile]

Does my hon. Friend also recognise that “The Archers”, and not just “Hollyoaks”, has a significant part to play? It is a very good soap opera, and would it not be wonderful were it to start talking about people abroad?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think it is time I joined in. Whatever we do, we are not going around the soaps. We are talking about overseas registration, not plots about registration in the UK.

[John Penrose]

You are absolutely right, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I would observe that many of these soaps are also watched by overseas and expatriate voters living abroad, but I shall move on before I try your patience any further.

The Bill also deals with internet voting, which is potentially a very important area. It is interesting that we all increasingly take for granted the use of the internet for more and more things. If someone said 10 years ago that a large proportion of us—if not yet a majority—would be using internet banking or shopping, people would have been very surprised, yet here we are, and it is increasingly a part of normal life in this country. If online voting is not already happening—some, like my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, are already asking the question—it will certainly start to happen in due course. People will start to ask, “Why can we not vote online?” The trade union movement has already asked the question, while other organisations are starting to use internet voting for some issues.

That said, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) rightly asked about the fraud issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has built this into clause 3. There is an important point here about fraud prevention. While we are increasingly used to online banking and shopping, and those sorts of things, if, in those cases, something goes wrong, broadly speaking, the bank or credit or debit card company—or whoever it might be—will usually stand behind the transaction and take the risk from the consumer. That is perfectly acceptable for commercial transactions. The difficulty is that it is extremely hard to work out whether a vote has been intercepted and potentially subverted—switched from a vote for Labour to a vote for the Conservative party, or from an aye to a no in a referendum—especially given that we have secret ballots, which are an essential part of our democracy. At the same time, the stakes could not be higher. Clearly, stealing the government of a country is an incredibly serious issue, and one that it would be extremely hard to unpick afterwards, in the way we can unpick a faulty commercial transaction, make good the money and undertake a forensic analysis.

I am not saying we do not expect online voting to happen in due course, but I believe that the fraud issues are not yet resolved. I am sure that the technology will continue to advance and be ready at some point, and that we will have a robust and transparently solid political and democratic process that will allow this to happen, but we are not yet there. However, given the way the world is moving—it is happening in more and more areas of our lives—it would be a brave man who said it will never happen, even if, like my hon. Friend, they are not that familiar with Skype. I suspect it is a question of when, not if, but I am afraid that, at the moment at least, the answer is, “Not yet.”

I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch on introducing the Bill, and I reassure him that we are working extremely hard and hope to bring forward a Bill that will do many of the things that his proposes, including getting rid of the 15-year rule and enfranchising British citizens living abroad. In parallel to but separately from the Bill, we are trying to drive up registration among under-represented groups, including expatriates.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Will the Minister clarify the remarks he just made? Is he saying that internet voting is not part of the proposals the Government are currently preparing?

[John Penrose]

I will clarify that: it is not currently part of our proposals, because we do not yet think the technology is safe enough. We will keep the technology under continual review, and at some point there might be a democratic consensus that it has become safe enough, but that moment is not now.

To conclude, we welcome the intention behind the Bill and remain committed to the manifesto pledge. We will introduce our version of it, which I hope will be different in technicalities but congruent in direction with getting rid of the 15-year rule and therefore enfranchising all missing voters. In parallel, we will introduce new measures, on a cross-party basis if possible, to find those under-represented groups, whether they are overseas or domestic voters, and to drive up registration wherever we can. With that, I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured and feel able to withdraw the Bill, while he waits for our Bill to arrive, which I hope will not be too much longer.

Short Money

John Penrose Excerpts

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.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[John Penrose]

I was hoping for a more constructive response. I was hoping for a more balanced response. I was hoping for a set of proposals I could use as a response to the request for views. I am afraid that that is not what we have had, and I deeply regret that. I hope there is still time for us to move forward in a more constructive fashion.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for launching a consultation, which, I have to confess, seemed to be lacking earlier in the process, so that is obviously a step forward. It is legitimate to ask whether it costs more or less to run an Opposition depending on how big the Government’s majority is. The official Opposition have a function that should be carried out regardless of the number of seats they have. I assure my hon. Friend that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee will continue to take an interest in this matter, although I hope it can be resolved rather more consensually than in today’s exchanges.

[John Penrose]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments and particularly for his final point about trying to resolve these issues more consensually. I look forward to any conclusions his Committee arrives at. I completely agree that it must make sense at least to ask, and to request views about, what the proper cost of running an Opposition—the official Opposition or, indeed, some of the other opposition parties—should be. That does not necessarily vary depending on the number of votes cast at an election, which is something the current system requires, for example.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I declare an interest as the national secretary of the Scottish National party. It is a good thing that a consultation is taking place, but why limit it just to political parties? Why not extend it to the public and other stakeholders who might have an interest? There is nothing wrong in principle with reducing the cost of politics, so can we get some assurances on reducing the number and cost of special advisers and, indeed, of Members of the House of Lords? Given the proximity of the end of the financial year, when will the Government be in a position to confirm to the parties and the staff they employ what the settlement will be?

[John Penrose]

Obviously, the conclusions of the request for views will depend on what views are expressed, and I do not want to prejudge that. We will, however, want to move promptly and swiftly to make sure that any staff who might be affected by any changes that are announced have the maximum time for planning and that there is certainty as soon as there can be.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I regard Short money as a critical part of our democracy, but given the realistic comparison with special advisers, and the steps the Government have taken to have transparency in the publication of senior special advisers’ salaries, does the Minister not think it appropriate for the Opposition to show greater transparency in the salaries of their senior appointed researchers?

[John Penrose]

My hon. Friend, who was involved with administering Short money and policy development grants before he came into the House, knows whereof he speaks. He is right that it is essential that we demand the same transparency for taxpayers’ money in all areas. That should include not just the cost of Spads, which is already transparent, but, equally, policy development grants and Short money.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I have no problem at all with the transparency that has just been asked for. The Minister is a decent man, but I think he has been tasked with doing someone else’s dirty business. What he is proposing is not actually about the cost of politics; if it were, he would also propose a cut in the budget for special advisers. This is actually about gagging the Opposition. Will he scrap this rushed consultation, abandon the attack on the scrutiny of the Government, and look again at how the cost of politics can be reduced by, for instance, chopping the budget for special advisers?

[John Penrose]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments about me, and as a member of the Whips Office with him in the last Government, I reciprocate, of course. He is right that there are other ways of cutting the cost of politics. For example, we have in front of us proposals to reduce the total number of MPs in this House. I would not, therefore, want to limit what we plan to do just to Short money, but we should not let that be the enemy of doing the right thing on this issue either. Therefore, it is essential that we proceed with these proposals, and I hope we can rely on the right hon. Gentleman’s support.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

Having had a hand in the creation of the policy development grant, and having argued vigorously for Short money increases when the Conservative party was in opposition, I will have to look carefully before arguing for anything other than that this decision to make such a substantial cut needs to be reconsidered. It certainly seems unacceptable that it is being introduced in one year. Everybody understands the need for financial stringency, and for this House to takes its share of reductions, but could the Minister at least look at whether this reduction can be phased? Could he also carefully examine the point that has been made about special advisers, whose numbers have grown enormously? The Labour Government bequeathed about 80, and the coalition Government got up to about 110, although the number has been reduced a little recently. Still, those numbers are very large. Those people do provide a lot of political assistance to the Government, and there is—although not a symmetry—a relationship between the two numbers. Looking at Short money in isolation would be a mistake.

[John Penrose]

May I start by reassuring my right hon. Friend that we are talking not about a cut, but about a slower rise? The cost of Short money has already risen by 50% since 2010, which is a significant amount. We are talking about reducing the rise, which, if nothing were done, would continue to ratchet up between now and the end of the Parliament. I would also say to him that the total salary bill for Spads is still lower than the total cost of Government funding for policy development grants, Short money and other areas of expenditure. Therefore, while I agree that the two things are not directly comparable, there is some symmetry. I hope he is reassured by the fact that the Spad salary bill is much lower overall than the bill for the total funding of Opposition parties.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Will the Minister clarify his thinking on policy development grants and how it ties in with the views of the Electoral Commission?

[John Penrose]

The House will be aware that the independent Electoral Commission has undertaken a fairly careful consultation over some time and has made some recommendations. The statutory instrument I mentioned in my initial remarks implements some of those, but not all as yet. We are holding off on deciding how we proceed with the remainder of the recommendations until we have the results of the expression of views. Given the obvious parallels between Short money and policy development grant, we thought it was sensible to make sure we had one set of answers before we proceeded with the other recommendations.

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

The cost of Short money has increased by 68% cumulatively since 2010. Is that really justifiable at a time when councils of all colours are making very large efficiency savings? Surely, taxpayer-funded political parties can do the same.

[John Penrose]

I could not agree more. People outside this place—outside the Westminster bubble—who are looking at our discussions today will not understand why politicians feel that they should treat themselves separately and as a special case. Those people will look at what has happened to their budgets over the last five or six years and say, “What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the political gander as well.”

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Setting aside for a moment the outrageous detail of the request for views, will the Minister tell the House what effect a cut in Short money would have on scrutiny and on the comfort, or discomfort, the Executive feel as they go about their business?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

As I mentioned, the amount of Short money has gone up by 50% since 2010, so Opposition parties have a great deal more money with which to do their job than they did before. I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the comment made when we last considered this issue, about 10 days ago, by the hon. Member for Clacton, who pointed out that the costs of research and many other political functions are now potentially lower. Given what is being asked of many Departments and local authorities, it is certainly reasonable to ask people to work more efficiently in future.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

I think the public will be astonished that full accounts do not have to be published in this age of transparency. How is the Minister going to put that right?

[John Penrose]

I devoutly hope that the result of this process will be an increase in transparency. We already have improved transparency in pretty much every other area of taxpayer-funded spending, and we already have transparency that is far better than that for Short money on policy development grants—a very similar kind of grant. It would therefore be increasingly out of step with the modern world for us to assume that Short money should somehow be magically exempt.

[Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

I would challenge the Minister, because I do not see this money as being for politicians; it is for our staff and our support teams. It is essential that we have those staff and support teams so that we deliver, and deliver well, for our constituents and the people we serve. Transparency is not an issue. None of us in this House, as far as I am aware, will dispute the need for transparency, and any moves towards transparency would be broadly supported. However, the problem is that my arithmetic seems to have gone awry. My figures tell me that in 2010 the Chancellor employed four special advisers, at a total cost of £230,000, and today he employs 10 special advisers at a total cost of £700,000. That is a 204% increase, according to my arithmetic; perhaps I am wrong. How can the Minister defend a 24% cut to those of us who are trying to make things work and a 204% rise for those in the Chancellor’s office? The Chancellor’s Spad team now costs more than the total cost of policy development grant given to all of us on these Benches—DUP, Plaid Cymru, SNP and SDLP Members. The Chancellor gets more than we get.

[John Penrose]

As I said, the cost of special advisers has fallen since the last general election. I would just point out that Gordon Brown, when he was Chancellor, had more Spads than the current Chancellor, and that the average salary of a special adviser is currently £2,000 less than it was under Gordon Brown’s Government in 2009.

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

Short money, quite rightly, exists to enable Opposition parties to undertake scrutiny and parliamentary duties. Many of my constituents will therefore find it hard to understand the funding received by Sinn Féin when its Members neither attend this House nor participate in its activities. Will my hon. Friend undertake to look at this anomaly?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

For a long time, the funding received by Sinn Féin has been treated as a separate but parallel consideration, subject to a separate resolution of this House. I would expect that to continue and for it to receive separate, special consideration as a result.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)]

I welcome the Government’s announcement that they will be cutting Short money, and I urge Ministers to stick to their guns and not to retreat. The sight of special pleading from political parties wanting to get their hands on taxpayers’ cash is disgraceful. I urge Ministers not only to slash Short money but to insist that all political parties publish fully audited accounts of what they spend it on, as my party will at the end of this year, so that we can see the hotel bills and precisely what they spend that taxpayers’ money on.

[John Penrose]

I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a timeworn phrase but it bears repetition: sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is vital that the Government secure value for money. Given that the purpose of Short money is to provide a credible Opposition, does he agree that the display that we have seen so far, with the announcement of policies such as nuclear submarines without nuclear missiles, shows that much of it has been completely squandered?

[John Penrose]

I hesitate to follow my hon. Friend down such a path, but if the purpose of Short money is to provide a credible Opposition and it has gone up by 50% since 2010, perhaps we now have an incredible Opposition instead.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Since, with the one exception that we have just heard, there is such strong feeling among those on the Opposition Benches that the Government are intending to undermine the work of the Opposition, would it not be sensible to do what was done originally when Short money was introduced—namely, to have constructive talks with the Opposition, with no ultimatum at the outset, in order to reach a fair settlement?

[John Penrose]

I had rather hoped that the request for views would elicit a strong and perhaps constructive response. I am afraid that has not been visible so far, but none the less I hope that that may change between now and the end of the period of the request for views. I also point out to the hon. Gentleman that because we are facing a deficit, time is pressing and we have less fiscal slack to play with.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the Short money reforms mean that Labour has to name and state the salaries of its special advisers, particularly those who write the Leader of the Opposition’s speeches, because although I do not know their remuneration, I think they are hugely overpaid?

[John Penrose]

Given the level of transparency that is already rightly expected of the Government when employing Spads, for example, it is reasonable to ask for an equivalent level of transparency with regard to how Short money is spent on people such as Damian McBride, who I understand has just rejoined the Labour party’s payroll, and Seumas Milne.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The Minister talks a lot about savings to the taxpayer, but can he confirm that any savings that will be made by these proposals will in fact be dwarfed by the extra cost to the public purse as a result of the Prime Minister’s prolific rate of appointments to the other place?

[John Penrose]

Actually, the cost of the House of Lords, I am told, is falling even while its numbers are rising, and so the cost to the public purse will be reduced as a result of the changes that are happening at the other end of the building.

On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point about whether saving this amount of money is worth while, I would say, at the risk of angering my colleagues from Scotland, that mony a mickle maks a muckle. It matters what we save and it matters that we pay attention to every single detail, given the scale of the deficit that we inherited from the previous Labour Government.

[Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I hope the Minister will recognise that there appears to be consensus in the House on transparency. Would it be fair enough, given that the Government have reduced their travel costs during their time in office, that the Opposition should publicise their travel costs and claims for special advisers running up and down the country?

[John Penrose]

That is an intriguing proposal, and I thank my hon. Friend very much for it. I will take it as a constructive suggestion for the request for views.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Given the increase in costs of Spads since 2009 by some 56%, the proposed cut in Short money of 24% over four years is disgraceful. Is the Minister not ashamed of his Government’s attack on democracy and scrutiny in this House?

[John Penrose]

We have already covered these points. Short money has already gone up by 50%, and it has gone up by 30% in the past year. I think that people listening to these exchanges will be asking themselves how much it costs to run an Opposition and why politicians feel they are so much more deserving of cash than, for example, benefits claimants whose money has not risen at anything like the same speed.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Given the public’s perception of the performance of the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps we should just take the Opposition’s money away completely.

[John Penrose]

I will take that as a suggestion and a proposal. I suspect that the weight of views across the House may probably be rather against it and that people do feel that there is a place for Short money, if it is properly reformed, in the same way as there is a place for the policy development grant, in order to make sure that an effective Opposition, properly, not excessively, funded, can function.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Again, I ask this question: with the cost of Government Spads rising, will the Minister concede that a disgraceful 24% cut to the Opposition parties’ funds is a case of double standards and an impediment to the Opposition parties’ scrutiny of the Executive?

[John Penrose]

I am afraid that I respectfully disagree with the hon. Lady, if only because, as I said, the cost of Spads has fallen since the general election and will still remain lower than the total funding for Opposition parties.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Spending of Short money is unnecessarily opaque, so in his consultation, will my hon. Friend seek representations from senior, and numerate, Opposition Members such as the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) and the hon. Members for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and for Islwyn (Chris Evans) as to whether they think that the taxpayer, and indeed their own party, gets value for money from the likes of Seumas Milne?

[John Penrose]

I will take submissions from any Member on either side of the House on what would involve good value for money. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on the questions of what represents value for money, how much it costs to run an Opposition office and whether we can make sure it is done as efficiently as possible with taxpayers’ cash.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The fact is that the number of special advisers has gone up to 96 and the Prime Minister has appointed a record 236 peers to the other place. Meanwhile, the Government have introduced the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 and are attempting to gag the trade unions and cut the Short money. That shows that the Government are not interested in cutting the cost of politics. It is absolutely clear that they want to silence any opposition in this country.

[John Penrose]

I am afraid that I do not accept the premise of the hon. Lady’s question. We are proposing to cut the number of MPs in this place—which is not an easy thing to do—so we are very serious about cutting the cost of politics. I therefore hope that, in that spirit, people will contribute constructively to the request for views.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that my constituents at least have the right to as much transparency as possible on how Short money is being spent? For all they know, it could be being used by hon. Members to help them write their books.

[John Penrose]

I am sure that none of the Opposition parties would spend taxpayers’ money in such a disrespectful fashion, but they will, of course, have nothing to hide, so I am sure that nobody will be at all concerned about proposals for increased transparency.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that this will have to be done by a resolution of the whole House? Does he have a date in mind for such a resolution?

[John Penrose]

The usual parliamentary process will be followed, so there will have to be a proposal. The statutory instrument for positive development grants has already been laid, and that can be either passed or prayed against in the usual way. The hon. Lady is right to say that, when we come up with proposals for Short money, they will have to be passed by a resolution of this House.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that during the consultation he will specifically look at protecting and supporting the interests of minority parties? They have a hugely important role to play in this Parliament, especially when we have such a divided and weak official Opposition.

[John Penrose]

I gave in my initial remarks an illustration of some of the peculiarities of the distribution of Short money. I gave comparisons between the money received by UKIP and the Greens, but there are other examples. Many Members of smaller Opposition parties will be able to quote examples of why they feel they are being either under or over-remunerated, depending on who they are. Therefore, it is certainly sensible for us to ask how that can be improved and whether the basis of allocation can be made better.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

“Cutting the cost of politics,” the Minister says, meaning cutting the number of elected MPs while stuffing the other place full of his mates, and cutting support to Opposition parties while greatly increasing the number of Government special advisers. If he wants to cut the cost of politics, why has the Conservative party claimed £1.27 million in policy develop grants since 2010?

[John Penrose]

The allocations of money as per policy development grants are based on recommendations by the independent Electoral Commission, not on Government proposals. I would also point out that we are practicing what we preach, because in previous years the allocation of policy development grants to the Conservative party has been scaled back. We have handed some of that money back, for precisely the reasons that I described earlier about wanting to cut the cost of politics.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

With a national debt of £1.5 trillion, or £24,000 for every man, woman and child in this country, and some Government Departments making heroic efforts to cut back-office functions—the Ministry of Justice is cutting 50% of its back-office functions—what possible signal does it send out to the country and to the civil servants doing those jobs when they see some political parties refusing even to engage with sensible reforms of their own funding?

[John Penrose]

I could not agree more. The general public will not understand why politicians feel that we should be a special case. They will look at and listen to this debate and ask, “Why should these guys think they are in any way deserving of better treatment than people who are on benefits and struggling with their budget? Why should they get a special deal?”

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I do not think that the general public will understand why the Cabinet Office has 50 press and communications officers or why the Ministry of Justice has 42 external communication officers. Should not the Government start to tighten their own belt and cut their own cloth first?

[John Penrose]

The Government are putting their own house in order. We made dramatic savings in the public sector over the course of the last Parliament and we are continuing to make further savings, including of 19% in unprotected Departments, across the whole of Government in this Parliament, so I respectfully reject the hon. Lady’s starting assumption.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

In the last Parliament, I was an adviser to the then shadow Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), along with one other part-time member of staff. By contrast, the Government Ministers had four special advisers, a series of private offices and hundreds of press officers and policy advisers. There is no equivalence. Will the Minister accept that Short money is not profligate, but the minimum required for opposition in a healthy parliamentary democracy?

[John Penrose]

If it is the minimum required for sensible opposition, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain why it is so much higher now than it was five years ago in real terms, and why it will be higher than it was in 2014-15. If the costs of running an Opposition are consistent—they may even be lower than they used to be—the current levels of Short money, having risen so far, must be over-budget and something where savings can be made.

Short Money and Policy Development Grant

John Penrose Excerpts

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—

[Hon. Members]

Where’s the Leader of the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister with responsibility for constitutional reform.

[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.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appreciate that this is a high-octane issue, and it is because I judged it worthy of treatment today that the urgent question was granted. Members must, however, listen to the Minister who is, to be fair, among the most courteous of Ministers. He must be heard—[Interruption.] Order. There will then be a full opportunity for colleagues to question him.

[John Penrose]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. To finish my point, the country will not understand why politicians should be exempt from having to deal with the effects of the financial deficit that we were bequeathed by the last Labour Government. The reason why we have to tighten our belts as a nation is that whopping financial deficit. It cannot be right for politicians to argue that they should be in some way exempt—a special class—and not have to do their bit. Short money has gone up by 50% so far, and it will continue to rise if we do nothing. I think that the country expects us as politicians to set an example and to do our bit.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I have great sympathy for my hon. Friend the Minister who has been sent here to be shouted at by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) because I doubt whether he is the author of this policy or that he is responsible for determining the outcome. If the policy is as reasonable as the Minister insists, however, it is quite clear from these exchanges that the Government have handled the matter in a clumsy manner so that the Opposition feel they have not been consulted. On the other hand, could there be an agenda behind this change, which is rather more political in its intent?

I would like to inform Members that my Select Committee has already received correspondence from another Conservative Chair of a Select Committee expressing concern about this matter. We are looking into it and will be holding an inquiry. All sides should have a fair hearing so that these matters can be agreed by consensus.

[John Penrose]

I welcome the Select Committee Chairman’s pledge of a further consultation. That will provide further opportunities to air the issues around this matter in addition to—and possibly in parallel with, depending on the timing—the consultation I mentioned in my earlier remarks.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I declare an interest as the national secretary of the Scottish National party. I echo the points already made on Short money. Government is growing, special advisers are growing, the House of Lords is growing, but our ability to hold the Government to account is being stripped back. There is one rule for Tory cronies and another rule for everyone else.

The policy development grant poses serious issues for the headquarters, especially of smaller parties and especially given the prospect of a cut in the middle of devolved election campaigns. Will the Minister take on board the recommendations of the Electoral Commission? What opportunities will be there be for further consultation and cross-party negotiation on both these issues?

[John Penrose]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the policy development grant has a slightly different mechanism. It has to be dealt with through a statutory instrument rather than by resolution of the House. The statutory instrument will be laid as soon as it is ready, whereupon the hon. Gentleman and everybody else will have an opportunity to debate it. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that the Electoral Commission has been consulting carefully and making recommendations about the revised shares to reflect the results of the last general election. I look forward to hearing his further comments at that point.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May I make two points on behalf of my constituents? First, I absolutely agree with the shadow Leader of the House that the growth in the number of special advisers has got completely out of hand. If the Government want sensible policy advice, they should speak to their Back Benchers. After all, we are the ones who are in touch with our electorate.

Secondly, there should be some mechanism for measuring the effectiveness of the Opposition, because from where I am sitting it would seem that, pro rata, the Scottish National party offers a far more effective opposition than the present Labour party.

[John Penrose]

The shadow Leader of the House delights in using the standard format, “There is a word for that.” He has used that rhetorical device on several previous occasions, but one of the words he has not used is “shambles”, which is perhaps what my hon. Friend is suggesting about Labour’s performance on at least one or two issues.

I can happily confirm that the cost of Spads has started to fall since the last general election, which is tremendously important. I also heartily endorse my hon. Friend’s point that, in order to remain in touch with both the feelings of the House and those of the electorate, Governments need to listen to Back Benchers as well as to others very carefully indeed.

[Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that I was fortunate enough to be the Leader of the House who put through the settlement on Short money to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has referred? At the time, we had a massive majority and every opportunity to use office to disadvantage our opponents, had we wished. The Conservative party was politically on its knees, and financially as close to it as it had ever been. We had experienced one of the features of the proposal that is being considered, namely the freezing of the grant after it has been cut. We experienced inflation of 10% to 15% under the triumphant preceding Conservative Government. Consequently, not only did we treble the money and make special provision for the special needs of the Leader of the Opposition, but we inflation-proofed it. That is why the money has gone up for the past five years: it is his party’s own record on inflation that the Minister is criticising.

[John Penrose]

The right hon. Lady makes a very important point, but there is a crucial difference between the situation when she was in charge and the current situation: we have a huge deficit to deal with, while Labour inherited an economy that was doing incredibly well and a set of Government finances that were in a far stronger position. The difference is the deficit, and the reason for the deficit is sitting opposite me. I am afraid that that is why politicians and the rest of the country have to tighten our belts.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend, despite all the outrage on the Opposition Benches, just remind us again by precisely how much Short money has risen since 2010?

[John Penrose]

It has gone up by 50% when everybody else has had to tighten their belts, and if we do nothing, it will continue to rise further.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)]

I am delighted that the Government are cutting Short money; few things this Administration have announced have pleased me more. Does the Minister agree that this is public money and that the public will deeply resent it being spent on politicians to do more politics? Does he agree that the rules on Short money need to reflect the fact that the cost of doing politics—of doing policy, research and communication—have come down? We live in a world where Google is at our fingertips, so we do not need researchers. We also have Twitter and blogs so we do not need a whole department of press officers. Does he agree that the public will resent using public money to pay for Spads and shadow special advisers, who have watched too much of “The West Wing”, to sit in Portcullis House at public expense?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I agree with large parts of what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that the public will look at these contributions from the public purse—which taxpayers fund without choice, unlike other forms of political donation about which people do have a choice—and wonder why the political classes think that they should be exempt, particularly because, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, it is far more possible nowadays to do this work in an efficient fashion and to deliver greater efficiencies. I believe that he has in the past turned down potential allocations of either Short money or the policy development grant to which he was theoretically entitled, and I compliment him on that principled stand.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Speaking as one who managed Short money and the policy development grant for the Conservative party when we were in opposition, I think that they are critical elements of what we need in order to function effectively in a democracy. I recognise that the grants have increased significantly, but I would gently say to those on the Front Bench that when making proposals about the future of these sums and how they are to be spent, due consideration should be given to the risks of their being spent more broadly in political parties, and also the opportunities that exist to fund a great deal of the work involved from sources outside political parties in the modern age of politics.

[John Penrose]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and, as he says, he speaks from personal experience. I think that the crucial point we all need to remember—the guiding star—is that at some point whoever is in government will be in opposition, although I hope it will not be for a great deal of time in our case. We must therefore come up with rules that we are all happy to live with, whichever side of the aisle we are on.

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

The Government are setting to one side all the conventions for dealing with issues of this kind. There is no precedent for them to proceed in this way. In fact, what they are doing does not amount to anything more than Bullingdon Club bullying of Parliament. They are treating Parliament as if it were a Department of Government, and an unfavoured Department of Government at that. Will the Leader of the House—sorry, I mean the Minister, although it ought to be the Leader of the House—tell us what he has done to defend the interests of Parliament, rather than the narrow political interests of the Conservative Government?

[John Penrose]

I would gently and respectfully demur from the right hon. Gentleman’s starting point. We have been undertaking some informal discussions between parties, which we are planning to make much more formal in the future, and I think that means that there will be plenty of opportunities for cross-party views to be gathered. There is absolutely no intention to subvert the will of Parliament. In fact, as you know, Mr Speaker, whatever proposals are made will have to be subject to debate and passage through the House when they eventually materialise.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend tell me how much money we are talking about, in cash terms? If he does not know, will he write to me about it, please?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I shall.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Can the Minister reassure me that all parties in the House will be fully involved in every stage of all the consultations? Will he also bear it in mind that a flat cut in both Short money and policy development grant will have a disproportionate effect on smaller parties, particularly regional parties? They are important elements in allowing us to function properly.

[John Penrose]

I can give the right hon. Gentleman exactly that reassurance. We will ensure that all political parties are involved in our consultation.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

If this is about responding to the deficit and the cuts are therefore justified, will the Minister explain how it is justified that the number of Spads has risen from 79 to 95, at an extra cost of more than £2 million?

[John Penrose]

As I said earlier, the cost of Spads has started to fall in the current Parliament. It is also important to remember that the total amount of Short money and policy development grant comes to dramatically more than the cost of Spads or anything of that sort.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Government, and the Conservatives, have form when it comes to rigging the electoral playing field. The Conservatives may have broken the law by spending more than the legal limit at by-elections. They are ramming through one-sided changes in the funding of political parties, while leaving in place their ability to raise huge sums from hedge fund managers. Now they intend to slash the Short money which ensures that Opposition parties can hold Governments to account. Can the Minister guarantee that the cuts will not be the final chapter in our transition from a multi-party state to a one-party state in which Robert Mugabe would be at home?

[John Penrose]

I do not know where to start in trying to rebut some of the absurd assumptions in that question, but I think that the short answer to all of them is “No.”

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

These proposals come on the back of the Government’s attack on Labour’s funding via the Trade Union Bill. It is clearly part of a partisan move to hit the Opposition and give the Government an unfair advantage, while leaving their own funding base of big donors untouched. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are now in favour of rigging the rules to suit themselves?

[John Penrose]

The hon. Lady will be unsurprised to hear that I disagree strongly with almost every word of her question. I am happy to confirm that I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Skills in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will give evidence on the Trade Union Bill to the House of Lords Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee later today, when we will perhaps have an opportunity to debate the proposals in even greater depth.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

The name is after the Leader of the House at the time, Edward Short, who provided money for the Opposition parties, particularly the Tories. Is the Minister aware that the measure he has announced will be seen, despite all his denials, as sheer spite against the Opposition parties, particularly the main Opposition party? The Government should be thoroughly ashamed of taking such a measure together with others to introduce, as was rightly said, a one-party state.

[John Penrose]

I am terribly sorry to disagree with such a senior and experienced Member, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman and others that the public at large have had several years of belt-tightening. They have had to deal with the effects of the deficit and have all had to contribute to try to close the yawning financial gap that we were bequeathed by the previous Government. They will just not understand—they will judge politicians and the political classes, as they see them, extremely harshly—if we are not willing to do our bit and make this work.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

There is a great sense of fairness in the British public at large and a much better sense of fairness among some Government Back Benchers. When the Minister is talking to the public about belt-tightening, it does not wash very well when they see the gala fundraisers the Conservative party is currently holding. If the proposal comes to this House of Commons for a vote, I warn him that reasonable people who value democracy and a healthy Opposition will not give him a majority.

[John Penrose]

The measures will in due course come to the House for a vote, and rightly so. They will be subject to proper democratic scrutiny in due course, so the hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to try to persuade others of his point of view, but I again draw a crucial distinction between the provision of public money, funded by taxpayers, who do not have a choice about whether the money goes to political parties, and voluntary political donations made by whoever it may be—individuals or trade unions. In the end, people should have a choice. That is the crucial distinction between those two sources.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Short money and the policy development grant are vital for parties such as mine in developing ideas and policies, which are the vital ingredients of any functioning democracy. If the UK Government are serious about cutting the cost of politics, why do they not reduce the membership of the over-bloated other House?

[John Penrose]

We are extremely serious about cutting the cost of politics. As you know, Mr Speaker, we have plans to reduce the size of this Chamber from 650 to 600 MPs, as was agreed in the last Parliament. The number of peers is going up, but the cost of the upper House is falling. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome that news and the news that there are ongoing political discussions on a cross-party basis on how other reforms might be effected in the House of Lords.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

If the money for democracy is cut and if the ermine-clad pantomime of the House of Lords is further bloated, contrary to what the Minister just said, is it not likely to bring shameless hypocrisy into disrepute?

[John Penrose]

There were an awful lot of negatives in that question, but I think that I get the hon. Gentleman’s drift. I take his point on the concerns about the overall size of the House of Lords, but it is important for us not to forget that it has managed to reduce its total costs. As I mentioned earlier, there are ongoing cross-party discussions on how to address its overall size. I encourage their lordships to continue those discussions and, with any luck, to produce proposals shortly.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

The Minister has repeatedly spoken this morning of tightening belts, but will he confirm that, when in opposition, the Conservative party took every penny of the £4.8 million Short money it was offered each year? There was no tightening of the belts then.

[John Penrose]

I cannot speak for what happened while we were in opposition, but I can confirm that we have on occasion handed back parts of, I think, the policy development grant because we were unable to spend it and we felt that it was appropriate to ensure that the taxpayer was reimbursed.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that 63% of the British population did not vote for this Government, and those people need to have their voices heard when policies hurt them. This is not about money for hotel rooms during by-elections; this is about democracy. Will the Minister start the consultation after the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has reported?

[John Penrose]

We are all anxious to crack on with this as soon as we can, and we would like to start the consultation shortly. Given the level of interest that has been made evident during this urgent question, I am sure that we would be criticised further if we were to delay the consultation. I would like to get on with it soon, if we can, and to allow plenty of time for people to respond over a period of weeks. I am sure that the Select Committee’s Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), will understand that timetable and that he will time his Committee’s investigations appropriately.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has increased the pay of one of his special advisers by as much as 42%. How on earth can it be justified for the Chancellor to lecture the rest of us on tightening our belts when that does not seem to apply to him?

[John Penrose]

As I mentioned before, the total cost of Spads since the general election has started to fall.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

This cannot be taken in isolation. The fact is that the Government do not like being held to account. That is precisely why we now have the Trade Union Bill, why charities are being gagged by the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill and why the Government are cutting the money to the Opposition. The truth is that they might be able to win a vote, but they cannot win the argument.

[John Penrose]

I keep on coming back to the central point that it is perfectly possible to undertake policy raising and policy development tasks more cheaply than before, as the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) mentioned. The rest of the country would not understand why, when everyone else has had to become more efficient, politicians should somehow be a special case. They would accuse us of feathering our own nests, and it would be extremely hard to justify that kind of action to anyone outside this place.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, you said earlier that the Minister was one of the most courteous in the House—indeed he is—but he has now been in denial for the best part of half an hour. Does he not accept that the combination of a Trade Union Bill attacking Labour party funds, a boundary review that is likely to favour the Conservative party and a reduction in Short money and policy development money gives the impression outside this place that the Government are acting like the bully in the playground? The damage will be inflicted not on a child but on the integrity of Parliament and on the health of our democracy.

[John Penrose]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the boundary review. It is important that we all sign up to the principle that everybody’s vote, right the way across the country, no matter which constituency they might be in, should weigh the same. It cannot be right to have a system in which, in the past, Members of Parliament from some political parties have been elected in constituencies with many fewer people than others. People might justifiably ask why the Labour party, which benefited from that system for a very long time, is so against the notion of having equal votes for equal weight. I commend the new changes and the equalisation of the size of constituencies to all here.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

The Minister is desperately trying, and failing, to justify the 19% cut to the Short money in the context of a Trade Union Bill that takes funds from the Labour party, of stuffing up the House of Lords and of changes to the electoral register and general election boundaries. Will he now admit that the so-called one nation party is trying to create a one-party nation?

[John Penrose]

I compliment the hon. Lady on a well-rehearsed soundbite, but I have to tell her that I am not feeling terribly desperate at the moment. Indeed, I am feeling quite principled, because we are trying to make the system fairer and to ensure that our democracy works in a fairer fashion in future.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Minister has said several times we all need to tighten our belts, so can he just answer this question: how come the Chancellor of the Exchequer can increase his Spad’s pay by 42%? Just answer the question, please.

[John Penrose]

I believe that I already have. The cost of Spads has fallen since the general election.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is right when he says that in times of austerity politicians have to take their cut in expenditure. Will he therefore give a commitment that any percentage drop in Short money for the Opposition is more than matched by cuts in expenditure on Government Spads?

[John Penrose]

I can go broader than that. I can promise that the proposed cuts are the same as those being applied to all non-protected Departments right the way across the Government. This is not picking on any particular area at all. This is the standard cut, which every other Department that has not been protected has had to deal with. That is an important point to get across to the rest of the country.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

The number of Government political advisers is up to nearly 100. The number of political advisers on the highest pay grade is up 150%. The Prime Minister’s reportable salaries have increased by 51% and the Chancellor’s reportable political salaries have increased by 277%. When the Minister told us, just minutes ago, that the Government were tightening their belt on their political budget, did he deliberately mislead the House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Very dextrous.

[John Penrose]

Not as far as I am aware.