Oral Answers to Questions

John Pugh Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

In my original answer, I was obviously pointing out how well the satellite broadband scheme is going as well. We launched it at the end of December to ensure that people with speeds of less than 2 megabits per second can get the speeds they need. It was a soft launch, but we will make the scheme much more high profile in the next few months. I will happily work with my hon. Friend to make sure that his constituents can benefit from the scheme, although I note that superfast broadband roll-out will be almost 100% both in his constituency and in Lancashire.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

On the subject of uptake, nearby Merseyside authorities are not claiming the millions that BT set aside for non-commercial broadband areas. Will the Minister look into that and put some pressure on the councils?

[Mr Vaizey]

Yes, I will certainly look into it. It is important that councils lead our scheme, because they know what is happening on the ground. We will work with them so that they can access either funding from central Government or European funding.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Pugh Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

We are fortunate this year to celebrate a number of important anniversaries, including Agincourt, Waterloo and the first world war, and my hon. Friend is entirely right to remind the House that we can add the battle of Evesham to that list. The commemorations will not only increase awareness of our heritage, but will draw more visitors to this country.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

The DCMS triennial review recommended that VisitBritain should have regional dispersal targets, so that VisitBritain is not simply “VisitLondon”. What progress is being made, and how will it be monitored?

[Mr Whittingdale]

The importance of persuading visitors that we have many attractions to offer outside London, as well as in London, is something I am very conscious of, not least because it was one of the principal recommendations of the Select Committee’s report on tourism. We will be responding to the report very shortly. I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point. We will certainly, if not set targets, be doing our best to persuade visitors to enjoy all the attractions right across all the nations of the UK.

Business of the House

John Pugh Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I advise the hon. Gentleman to base questions not simply on press reports, but on facts.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

On the Immigration Bill, will the Leader of the House clarify exactly what percentage of Conservative MPs will follow the Prime Minister today, or is it Liberty Hall on the Government Benches?

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

John Pugh Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman may not have understood. The fact is that we had no intention of changing the test of what constituted promoting or procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate. By reverting to the PPERA legislation, we have put charities and other organisations back to where they were in the run-up to the 2005 and 2010 general elections in relation to what constituted procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate. I accept that in other ways we have changed things in response to the Electoral Commission’s request about the definition of controlled expenditure.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

In his letter, Sir Stuart Etherington says:

“A health charity could publish a leaflet highlighting the dangers of smoking. If smoking legislation became a party political issue in an election this activity could be deemed to have the effect of supporting a party’s campaign”.

Has he simply misunderstood the legislation?

[Tom Brake]

If an anti-smoking organisation ran a campaign subsequently adopted by a party, that would not count as controlled expenditure unless that organisation subsequently said, “Oh, by the way, party X is supporting our campaign, so vote for party X.” The mere fact of running a campaign supported by a party would not incur controlled expenditure. That is clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

I will come to that, but I am not aware of a problem. When an hon. Friend intervened, we did not get an answer from the Minister on whether there is an example in practice of the limit being too high. However, the Opposition do not have a closed mind on a proper cross-party, evidence-based debate on the matter. We do not believe the Government have done that.

[John Pugh]

One thing that puzzles me is that, during previous debates on electoral legislation in the House, Labour Backbenchers pleaded time and again with the then Labour Government to do something about expenditure in marginal constituencies—Ashcroft money. Some of them are no longer Members of the House. Why did the Labour Government not do anything?

[Stephen Twigg]

The hon. Gentleman moves the debate to party political spending, which is not addressed in the Bill. I would happily work with him and his colleagues to address party political funding—I would be delighted to do so. Perhaps we can pursue that beyond today’s debate.

In Committee, the Minister, who has led for the Government today, promised

“to ensure that, on Report, the fundamental concern of charities over the confusion that they say the Government have introduced into the definition of election materials and election purposes will be addressed.”—[Official Report, 10 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 862.]

In reality, the Government amendments simply fail to fulfil his promise.

I refer the House to the legal opinion of Ros Baston, who has been working with a number of third sector organisations. Her legal opinion, which is one of a number of which the Minister will be aware, demonstrates why we need far more scrutiny and consideration of part 2. It states:

“Issues-based campaigning will continue to be covered by regulation. It appears that the government considers that removing the previous reference to ‘enhancing the standing’ of parties or candidates has a significant effect on the scope of what is covered…In my view, it does not…The natural meaning of ‘promote’ is to enhance the standing of, or make people think better of, something or someone…The natural construction, therefore, is that issues-based campaigning will be covered where it can be reasonably regarded as intended to encourage voters to look more favourably at candidates or parties who do or don’t support particular policies, as well as support for a specific party or candidates. This is primarily an objective test, and, in simple terms, looks at the likely effect of the activity.”

The Minister spoke of intent, but Ros Baston asks us to look at the likely effect of the activity. If an activity is likely to make people think better of parties or candidates who support something, it might be covered by the Bill, even if there are reasons for it such as awareness-raising—the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has made that point.

Ros Baston also states:

“Campaigns could fall within regulation if they…promote policies which, for whatever reason, are associated with one or more political parties or candidates”

and not others

“such as housing, welfare, a referendum on EU membership, wind farms or HS2”

and

“use MPs or candidates as active advocates of their cause”.

She continues:

“I do not consider it sustainable to argue that the campaign is not hoping that people or parties sympathetic to its cause are elected. Therefore, when it undertakes public awareness activity in the run-up to elections, it may well at some level intend to improve the chances of election for those who support their cause as well as to encourage others to join the campaign. There is, after all, no requirement in the Bill or the proposed amendments for the activity to be directly or obviously partisan, or for candidates to be named.”

The opinion goes on:

“The effect of the Bill remains that more charities and low spending campaigners will be subject to the enhanced and much more onerous restrictions. This is because the range of activities covered will increase”—

that is why it is not simply the same as the current legislation—

“and the thresholds for registration will decrease to just £5,000 in England and £2,000 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”.

We will discuss those thresholds under the next group. Furthermore, it states that the additional

“limit on spending in individual constituencies could mean that a single joint campaign on a specific issue in one area could result in further spending—local or national—being unlawful.”

Ros Baston’s final point is that the

“amendments make two changes which are of concern to campaigning organisations.”

Those relate to “market research and advertising” and to

“the definition of a ‘section of the public’, and the removal of the exclusion for material sent to ‘relevant supporters’”.

She states:

“It remains unclear as to whether the costs for research which is used in publications are included, and the government has not excluded staff costs (which are excluded for political parties). It also remains very probable that many political blogs will be covered notwithstanding the amendments. This could lead to a bizarre situation where political parties would not have to account for spending on certain types of market research, but that non-party campaigners would have to do so.”

I do not want my entire speech to be made up of the opinion of Ros Baston, but I will give one final quotation because it is an interesting and forceful opinion:

“The drafting is so vague that campaigns will have to consider whether market research will be caught, regardless of whether the results are used to produce material available to the public or to target particular members of the public. Further, there is no requirement for the research to actually be used in practice at all.”

--- Later in debate ---

I have tabled an amendment that is sponsored by the NCVO—I make no bones about that—to open this debate up. The NCVO is saying, “We now know that you want to open up the law and change it. We have a different view about how you can do that.” It is putting forward its view to protect its own interests. Either we can go along with that signal and let things be opened up for proper debate and consideration within the Government or we can say, “No, we don’t even trust the fact that you now feel you have found a way forward and a form of words that can take us forward on this question of ‘primary purpose’”. We should listen to the NCVO. This is not the last time we are going to debate this issue; it will go to the second Chamber and it will come back here. I think we should listen to the NCVO and support amendment 101, so that that breathing space can be given.

[John Pugh]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Pandora’s box. He is Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, but I understood him to be suggesting that he wanted us to vote for a form of words, as an amendment to a Bill, that he did not want in the Bill. If that were the general practice throughout the House of Commons, it would create a strange precedent, would it not?

[Mr Allen]

Well, we were just being serious for a moment there. The hon. Gentleman normally joins me in being serious about the role of Parliament. I know that he is having a bit of fun, but this is a serious issue. Some 10,500 voluntary organisations and their parent organisations are saying, “We think you’ve got this wrong—think again.” If he feels that if the amendment were to be won tonight—whatever form of words we use—it would survive the process in the second Chamber and come back, he is having a little joke and we can all have a laugh at that. [Interruption.] I am being told to speed up so that we can get to the vote, so I would like to be allowed to make progress.

I am not just talking about 38 Degrees getting a bad press—rightly, some might argue—or people sometimes being annoyed, depending on their political view, with those on the fringes of some voluntary organisations, because a lot of other people have written to us just this day. A number of them have said things such as they fear this Bill, they are worried about unintended consequences and this does not have legal certainty. Are those the wild and wacky people we need to legislate against? I shall tell hon. Members who these people are; I shall tell the House who said those three things. They were said by Rabbi Sybil Sheridan of the Assembly of Reform Rabbis UK, Neil Thomas of the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Farooq Murad of the Muslim Council of Britain and Paul Parker of the Quakers. I could go on to cite a list of about 20 people from faith groups. According to the Leader of the House, they are making something up in order to embarrass the Government or because they have been wound up. I do not believe these people are so frail-minded. These people are anxious, just as the chairman of a charity who is standing before you is anxious, that we are putting in the Bill and into law something that will chill our ability to campaign. I guarantee to the House that it will chill my organisation’s ability to campaign, because if some bright spark wants to take a case, for some reason or other, against what has been said inadvertently, my budget—I go around cap in hand trying to raise money for my charity—will be spent in a court of law, not on providing the service that I think is appropriate through my charity for babies, children and young people. How many staff would I have to fire if I got landed with a £200,000 legal bill? That is why amendment 101 and the symbolism of tonight’s vote are important. They are important for all those charities outside that have been inundating us with their views.

As the Chair of the Select Committee, elected by this House on an all-party basis, and not as a Back Bencher on the Labour side doing the bidding of the Whips to cause a few problems for the Government, I have a request for Members from all parties. When we last considered the question, the difference between the proposal’s falling, meaning it had to be reconsidered, and its passing was 16 votes. I am asking 16 Members of this House to vote with those who voted last time on amendment 101. That will mean that we give the Government a chance to rearrange the clause in a way that will satisfy people in this House and, above all, that will satisfy people outside who fear what we are going to do today.

Business of the House

John Pugh Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I think that many Members throughout the House will have been pleased by and welcomed the announcement by the Minister for Schools of additional funding for capital projects in schools. Lancashire county council has been allocated basic need funding totalling £112.6 million for the period 2011 to 2015 to support the provision of additional pupil places. In Lancashire, as in many places throughout the country, that will ensure that the condition of schools is improved. It also responds to the demographic pressure moving through the school system at the moment. It is very welcome.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Being prevented from talking about Government estimates on estimates day would have puzzled Franz Kafka. Does the Leader of the House recognise that the report on improving parliamentary scrutiny of the nation’s finances mentioned by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) was actually commissioned by the Chancellor because he did not think that that scrutiny was good enough?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The report has been published, but it would be premature for me to say anything about how we might respond or take the issue forward. There is no question, however, but that we want to enhance scrutiny; this is not an Executive who want to inhibit it. In many ways, we have enhanced the scrutiny of the Executive by the House, and I hope that in this respect we can go further.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Pugh Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

I would have thought that my answering was encouragingly non-gender specific.

We were trying to work this out earlier, but I have a suspicion that the first medal at London 2012, the first gold and, indeed, the last medal were all won by female athletes. They made a huge contribution, both to Team GB and to Paralympics GB. All of us absolutely want to do everything possible to build on that and use it to encourage more young women to get into sport.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

T4. What assessment have the Government made of problem gambling on the internet, given the prevalence of the advertising?

[Hugh Robertson]

It is absolutely our intention to tackle the issue by regulating gambling at the point of consumption. Proposals to that effect will be brought forward later this year.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Pugh Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport was asked—

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

1. What assessment he has made of the potential for local radio franchises and licensing; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

We have made no assessment of the potential for radio franchises because radio licensing is a matter for Ofcom, which awards licences via a “beauty parade” mechanism, assessing individual applicants’ ability to deliver services for the local area.

[John Pugh]

I thank the Minister for that reply. News content aside—[Interruption]—should there not be more flexibility in licences and franchises to allow commercial radio to respond to market conditions?

[Mr Vaizey]

I found it slightly difficult to hear the question, but I think my hon. Friend was asking about flexibility in content regulation. That will be an important matter for the Green Paper as we look at communications regulation in the round.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

John Pugh Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, it is higher than both those figures, because it manages to reach a level that hits the number of Labour seats but not the number of Liberal Democrat seats. That is why the number has been chosen, and that is why I oppose it.

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

I want to calm things down a bit, and take the hon. Gentleman back to the technical point that he made before. He asked what would happen if the Boundary Commission dealt with a whole pile of seats first, got to about 95% and was perfectly satisfied, and then found, because it had to stick to the number 600, that it got into real difficulty and did some very odd things later on. If that was an issue for the Boundary Commission, we might think that some advice would have been given on it. Has he asked the Boundary Commission what its advice is on that point?

[Chris Bryant]

The Boundary Commission will do what it is told to do. If the law of the land changes, the Boundary Commission’s powers and duties are determined by that legislation and it will do what it is required to do.

[Dr Pugh]

Whatever the Boundary Commission is asked to do, it can say that some tasks are more technically difficult than others. The hon. Gentleman suggests that this is a technically difficult, almost insuperable task. If that is the case, it can say so, can it not?

[Chris Bryant]

No, I am not saying that the task is insuperable. Of course it would be possible to draw up the constituencies in the way proposed, but why should one constituency then end up with 95% of the average electorate and another with 105%? [Interruption.] The Deputy Leader of the House keeps on referring to the Rhondda. He obviously has some desire either to do down the people of the Rhondda or to visit the Rhondda, but I am not extending an invitation to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) made a good point about how seats might be doled out in the different parts of the Union. It is interesting to analyse what might happen to Sheffield: it would be quite difficult to construct a Liberal Democrat seat for Sheffield, Hallam that would survive—so there is a silver lining somewhere in the legislation.

Some communities will end up without their own representation if we cut the number of seats from 650 to 600 and insist on mathematical perfection. That is a problem.

[Dr Pugh]

Given what the hon. Gentleman just said about Sheffield, the gerrymandering is extraordinarily bad, is it not?

Business of the House

John Pugh Excerpts

Thursday 3rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I take that issue very seriously. As I said last week, I think that the House made the right strategic decision in the last Parliament when it decided to contract out responsibility for the fixing and paying of our allowances. We know of the difficulties that we got into during the last Parliament in that regard. Having said that, however, I should add that the whole purpose of the allowances regime is to enable Members of Parliament to do their job: to represent their constituents, and to hold the Government to account. I am seriously concerned by the growing number of stories from Members on both sides of the House about the difficulties that they are experiencing in accessing the system.

Immediately after business questions I shall meet representatives of all the political parties, and shortly thereafter I shall have a second meeting with the chief executive and the chairman of IPSA, to whom I shall convey the strong feelings which I know are widely shared. I shall also do all that I can to ensure that the technical problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are addressed as quickly as possible.

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

I am being besieged by requests to join all-party parliamentary groups. Surely there are now too many of them to be viable. Can the Leader of the House do anything to encourage a merger or coalition between APPGs?

[Sir George Young]

The solution rests in the hands of hon. Members. An all-party parliamentary group can only get going if enough Members agree to sponsor it; otherwise, it will not get off the ground. However, I agree that there are a large number of APPGs, many of which overlap.

Let me, at the beginning of a new Parliament, urge all colleagues to consider before automatically—to do a favour to a friend—signing up to an APPG whose meetings they have no intention of attending. Although APPGs have an important role to play, we need to be more selective about which ones we have, and to decide our priorities in a better way.