House of Lords Reform

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart]

As a result of the House of Lords Act 1999, the vast majority of the hereditaries were removed, but we are still left with 86 or so, which has always been considered unfinished business. Action has been a long time coming; they are still there—we still have people who have a role in our democracy due to birthright. That is unacceptable. We are all democrats in this House. We cannot allow people to have a role in our democracy because they are the first son of their family.

We might laugh, and it is easy to poke fun at an institution that is so singularly absurd and bizarre, but there is a sinister role in the activities of the House of Lords. It is sinister and open to abuse because it is an appointed Chamber. We do not bother with the whole exercise of letting the public decide and construct the Chamber down the road; instead, we leave it up to politicians—and the temptation for politicians is to stuff it full of their friends, cronies and placemen.

If we need an elderly Member of Parliament to move on for a dynamic, thrusting, new young Member, give the old one a place in the House of Lords. That dynamic, thrusting young Member might lose his seat—I am looking at the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), although he did not take a place in the Lords—so let us cushion the blow and let him continue with his political career by giving him a place in the House of Lords. All too commonly we find that that is how the House of Lords is being used and abused. It is a place for cronies, placemen and time-servers. That is not good enough.

Even that is not what bothers me in particular. The thing that concerns me most, and which should concern everyone in this House, are the donors—people who have a place in our democracy, in the second Chamber of Parliament, whose only qualification seems to be that they are able to give substantial and significant sums to one of the three main establishment Westminster parties. Those are the people who trouble me and who should trouble the rest of the United Kingdom, because lots of people appointed by the political parties seem to have no ability other than to manufacture large sums of cash to sustain those political parties. That is not good enough.

My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who I was hoping could be with us this morning, tested that issue to its legal limit in the previous Parliament. He looked at the situation in the House of Lords, saw connections with the highest levels of the then Labour Government and said, “There is something wrong here.” He then asked the Metropolitan police to investigate, and we had one of the most dramatic political police operations of recent years—the “cash for honours” investigation.

We saw a sitting Prime Minister, Tony Blair, being questioned by police and the arrest of his chief fundraiser and other members of his staff. Charges were dropped—none were brought—not because there was no case to answer or because a clean bill of health was presented, but because no evidence was found. The Crown Prosecution Service felt that it could not proceed with the case. We can all make up our minds about the type of influence that can be exerted on the CPS and the Metropolitan police to drop such a dynamic case. However, the situation was never given a clean bill of health and outstanding issues remain on donations to parties.

All we have to do is to look at the list of appointments to the House of Lords, such as that from last year. Those recently ennobled made a total contribution of £7 million to the three establishment Westminster parties. After cash for honours and something as dramatic as that police investigation, we might have thought that that place would be beyond reproach, that the Lords would have cleaned up their act and that there would be no suggestion, or even a whiff, of any type of abuse or wrongdoing. Not a bit of it! It would seem that they cannot change those ermine spots. Since then, we have had peers banged up in jail for abuse of expenses, cash for influence, cash for amendments and even some cash for honours.

The three biggest donors to the Liberal party—there are no Liberals here, so I am sorry if I am picking on them, Mr Howarth—[Interruption.] Sorry, the Deputy Leader of the House is here. This is something he might to pick up on. The three biggest donors to the Liberals, who just so happen to provide two fifths of the party’s donations, were given peerages by the Deputy Prime Minister. That forced a peer who has now departed, Lord Oakeshott, to concede that cash for honours was still very much alive and that, in his own words,

“my efforts to expose and end cash for peerages in all parties, including our own, and help get the Lords elected have failed.”

The House of Lords, because of its nature, because it is an appointed body and because it does not bother to go through the whole process of elections to be accountable to constituencies is rife with such abuse and activity. The British public deserve better. They deserve a scrutinising Chamber that is beyond reproach, that is democratically decided and that they can get rid of if they are unhappy with its activities.

Our political institutions have never been held in such contempt by the British public. We see that day in, day out. Trust and confidence in the Westminster establishment, the Westminster elite who run this place, has never been lower and that establishment has never been held in such low esteem by the British public. I suggest that when the public observe an undemocratic, ermine-ridden House like the one down the road, it compounds their strong sense of alienation from the whole process of Government.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I should tell the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that I am going to a Committee sitting shortly, so I will not be able to hear the end of the debate. I agree with practically everything the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree that any revising Chamber that remains should be 100% elected by proportional representation, so that it will also be a powerful check and balance on an over-mighty Government elected, as at present, by the undemocratic first-past-the-post system?

[Pete Wishart]

I know the hon. Gentleman’s record on these issues. He has been a big advocate of House of Lords reform, and I congratulate him on his efforts. I agree with him. I disagree, however, with the Labour party’s position on the issue. I debated it on television last night, in advance of this debate, and the Labour position—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman buys into it; we might hear about it from the shadow Minister—is like a secondary mandate, whereby the institutions of the United Kingdom somehow decide among themselves who should inhabit the second Chamber. I am interested to hear more—the shadow Minister is shaking his head, and we will hear from him exactly what the Labour party’s plan is—but that was suggested in the House of Lords when I watched a debate on it. I am sure that the shadow Minister has his plan, but the second Chamber should be elected, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith suggested. There is no substitute for democracy. We live in a democratic country, culture and society, so of course our Houses have to be elected.

Things have to change; they cannot go on as they are. We have tried to reform and democratise the place, but every effort over the past 20 years has failed. This might be hard for its 850-odd Members—likely to be 1,000 in the next Parliament—but it is now time to concede that the whole place is unreformable. It is time to rip the whole thing up and start again. That is the only way we can get reform.

As I have said, I believe that we need a second Chamber. We are a large and complex democracy, with asymmetrical devolution to all parts of the United Kingdom. I am open to any suggestion or plan for progress, but I do not think that it is for me, an oiky Nat Back Bencher, to suggest to the great and the good of the Westminster establishment parties the sort of model for reform that should be adopted. That is not my job—I will leave it to the great minds we see assembled on the Front Benches today to try to determine a way through. I am going to suggest several principles that I believe have to underpin a brand-new institution as we go forward.

The first principle, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith said, is that the revising Chamber must be exclusively democratic. We can no longer go forward with an appointed institution, and we certainly cannot have an institution with Members who are there only because of their family. That cannot go on—it has to be based on democratic principles.

Let me tell hon. Members something embarrassing about this situation. I am a governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, a task that I take very seriously because the foundation does fantastic work. I go around the world to speak in emerging democracies, to encourage good governance and support multi-party democracy as much as I possibly can. How can we give that message when we have the embarrassment of that undemocratic institution down the road? How dare we try to suggest to developing nations—countries that are struggling with democratic principles—that they emulate the United Kingdom? Are we asking them to get Lords or jump around like Santa Claus in their red cloaks? That embarrasses this nation. It is an embarrassment to me and to anybody else who does that work on behalf of this country around the world. The first principle, then, is that the revising Chamber must be absolutely democratic. That should go without saying.

The second principle is that its membership must be in proportion to the main Chamber. It is preposterous that we have a second Chamber of such a size, with 847 Members, soon probably to be 1,000. Its size must be in proportion to the main Chamber. I suggest that it should be a quarter to a third of its current size—anything between 200 and 250 Members should be sufficient for the task required of it.

That brings me to my third principle, which is also important: the role of the new Chamber should be clearly defined. My view is that that role should be exclusively scrutiny and supervision. I am unhappy when I see Bills initiated in an undemocratic House. During this Parliament, we have considered quite a few Bills that were initiated in the House of Lords and I am not happy about that. I do not think it right—elected Members should initiate legislation and design and shape it. Please, yes, let the other Chamber scrutinise and have a look at it, tell us when we have it wrong and improve it if necessary, but the second Chamber should be supervisory.

One reason why House of Lords reform failed a couple of years ago was the spurious fear of Conservative Members who suggested that any elected Chamber would be a challenge to the supremacy of the main elected House—as if that would be a bad thing and that a little bit of a challenge would not actually help the elected Members of the House of Commons. Myself and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith are Members for Scottish constituencies and share constituents with MSPs—we even share constituencies with list MSPs. That spurs me on to make sure I do better, and I am sure that it is the same for the hard-working hon. Gentleman. The nonsense about having competition for the main House is spurious, but if we clearly define the roles and functions of distinctive and separate Houses, it would lay that issue to bed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—if he does not mind my calling him that, and if it is not too deferential for his standards—will realise all too well that, as a Conservative, my views on House of Lords matters are not particularly orthodox. In fact, even before his time in the House, I was the only Conservative to support the notion of a unicameral system—certainly unicameral compared with the appalling state of our current House of Lords. To be honest, as a Conservative, I have no problem with a little forelock- tugging. I do not mind having dukes, earls, marquises, barons and the like. I just do not want them having any place in the legislature. They can call themselves whatever they like, but the notion that they are able to vote through laws seems as anachronistic as he pointed out.

In discussing House of Lords reform, there is a great opportunity for us to make the link with something I had thought the hon. Gentleman would raise: English votes for English laws, and the disjointed devolution we currently have in the United Kingdom. I shall touch on that in my speech. I broadly share his view that the time has come for comprehensive constitutional change in the United Kingdom. If it were to be carried out precisely and without partisan party political consideration, I believe we would be capable of producing a solution that will benefit Britain for decades to come.

My instinctive and immediate proposal would be for the creation of a new federal Parliament. It would be an elegant solution designed to resolve effectively the four main domestic constitutional uncertainties of the United Kingdom, which have plagued the political arena during the past three decades and perhaps will continue to do so in the years to come. With a federal UK Parliament and four elected national Parliaments, we could maintain the monarchy, strengthen the Union, and resolve the questions raised by the disgracefully unreformed House of Lords, which we rightly debate today. I would also wish to give independent and equal Parliaments to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Like the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, I am a democrat. Since my maiden speech in the House some 14 years ago, I have supported a fully elected House of Lords. The case for the preservation of the so-called “ancient traditions” of the upper House—we heard much on that, even from younger colleagues of mine in the Conservative party, when the House debated the issue two years ago—was conclusively lost in 1999. Once the vast bulk of the hereditaries—all bar 92—were removed, so too should all appointed Members have followed. Instead, as has been pointed out, we have a ludicrously bloated House of Lords. I am afraid that the Lord Winstons of the House, who are often prayed in aid of the House of Lords, are, with their great broad-based experience, assuredly the exception rather than the rule.

Over the past 15 years, the ranks of the House of Lords have been swelled by hundreds of party hacks and large-scale political donors, along with legislators of very dubious quality who are often given the nod on politically correct grounds. Indeed, I remain staggered at the sheer gutlessness of this place, the House of Commons, as we waved through the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. That legislation was promoted by the Deputy Prime Minister, who heralded the fatuous-to-the-point-of-being-disingenuous saving to the public purse of £10 million a year, which was ironic, given how the Liberal Democrats have not only stuffed the House of Lords full of their own placemen but swelled the ranks of special advisers to untold numbers, both of which actions are entirely counter to the idea of making the cost of politics cheaper.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

It appears that we all agree—or at least those of us present in the Chamber—on the need for democratic reform of the House of Lords. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we did not all support the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011—it was opposed by the Opposition.

On change in the House of Lords, although I understand the attraction of a radical transformation and move towards a federal Parliament, is there not a danger that we end up spending so many decades trying to get the correct solution that nothing ever happens? Is there a case for moving to an elected House of Lords now, and then moving on to further changes? Otherwise, nothing will happen, not only in our lifetimes but in the lifetimes of people yet unborn.

[Mark Field]

There is a danger of that. In many ways, much as I disapprove of what happened in 1999, from the point of view of the Blair Administration, they did the right thing in taking the view that they should partly sort out the hereditary issue. Of course, the risk of any reform is that a little flurry of it is followed by decades of nothing else being done—historically, that is what has happened with the upper House—with those who wanted some reform saying, “Well, listen, we’ve been able to achieve something.”

It is depressing that the House of Lords has become ever more a creature of the Executive, while House of Lords reform has ground to a halt. The truth behind what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire said is that it is down to the numbers game. The Whips can get business through the House of Commons, so we have the utter discourtesy of Government amendments being tabled in the House of Lords simply because it is known that the legislation will not get through without amendments, which are rubber-stamped when it comes back to the Commons. Instinctively, that feels wrong. Ultimately, it is in our hands in the House of Commons. We are now only 16 or 17 weeks away from a general election, and if the result is indeterminate, we parliamentarians will have the opportunity to stand up, have our say and make a difference, particularly if we are in the realms of a minority Government.

I must confess that, although I was happy to support the underlying principle of electing the House of Lords on Second Reading and in the programme motion of the House of Lords Reform Bill, I believed ultimately that, in many of its particulars, it was a shoddy, poorly drafted piece of legislation. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) said, if we try to work towards perfection, we will achieve very little. That is a great shame, because in many ways the British constitution has hitherto been one of the great success stories of modern politics. It has kept the country together—up to and beyond 18 September last year—united under a common Crown and common Parliament for more than 300 years. Not for us the coups, revolutions and counter-revolutions that have plagued much of the European continent over that period. So successful has the British constitution been that we Britons have often stopped thinking about it.

Until 15 or so years ago, no one lost much time worrying about constitutional niceties. We knew instinctively that, messy as it was, the British constitution worked well and worked for the whole of the British isles. The Blair Administration changed everything. They part-reformed the House of Lords by removing the independent hereditary element, but successive Governments since have created literally hundreds of new life peers. In response to the demand of the people of Scotland and Wales—a demand that I acknowledge the Conservatives were perhaps too slow to understand, and certainly to accept—devolved Parliaments and Assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were created. It requires little cynicism to see that many of those changes were designed for Labour’s political advantage, and that they have not necessarily been properly carried through elsewhere. That has created many problems, especially in England, the neglected land in all those constitutional changes. England is a nation proud and undivided, but many of its people increasingly demand equal treatment with the other nations of the UK. Since last September’s Scottish referendum—lost, in case there is a doubt about it, by 10.6%—some Tory strategists feel that the time is ripe to play the English card.

There is a deep and increasing disquiet among many in England at the effects of devolution, and the most serious problems are the imbalances left by the somewhat partisan settlement of the late 1990s. Those are easily stated. MPs from Edinburgh and Cardiff can vote on health and education policies that affect my constituents and Manchester constituents, and those of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), but not on health and education policies affecting their own constituents—but why? It does not seem just. Under the Barnett formula, residents of Edinburgh had £1,300 more spent on their public services last year than my constituents did. Again, that seems less than equitable. There was a disgraceful situation before Christmas in the Northern Ireland Assembly when the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Fein worked together to put a gun to the head of the British Government, to try to ensure there would be more money on the basis that they wanted a Barnett formula for Northern Ireland. If there is an indeterminate general election result, we may go down that route, with a bidding war on similar grounds in May and June.

Devolution and the Union

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

I am going to make a small amount of progress, but I will happily take an intervention a little later. I am conscious of the time restraints. I have been told that I have 15 minutes tops, and I want to respect that, because otherwise I shall get into trouble with you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I know that colleagues in the Scottish National party will argue for the retention of North sea oil revenue in return. Rather than ducking that argument, I want to address it head-on before I give way again. I say to SNP Members that, personally, I accept that basic logic in principle, but it must surely take into account all the British taxpayers’ money that was originally invested in the extraction of the oil, and it also requires us to think far more seriously about the geographical allocation of financial resources across the board. I am sure that they will accept that logic, as it follows theirs. Given the new findings of shale gas across England and the draining of oil production from the North sea, I doubt that this is the lottery ticket on which the SNP is betting, but I cannot deny that it is a natural consequence of pursuing the constitutional logic of financial devolution.

Can we not agree, at this stage at least, to arrange the independent review of the Barnett formula for which the motion calls, in the light of proposals from the main parties and across the board, so that the implications for those in the rest of Britain can be examined? Surely their voice, their interests and their concerns cannot be locked out of the debate for ever. Can we not reasonably agree that, subject to areas of spending that will be devolved, the remaining revenue allocated across Britain should follow a needs-based approach, which is precisely how revenue is allocated internally in Scotland?

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does not focusing the debate on the Barnett formula mean focusing it much too narrowly? If we are looking at expenditure, should we not look at the expenditure that the Barnett formula does not fully reflect? Should we not look at the income that the state receives, and the pooling and sharing of resources? If we are to have a review, let us look at the whole picture, rather than picking just one aspect of it.

[Mr Raab]

The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. I am certainly in favour of looking at the logical implications of financial devolution and following them to their natural conclusion. If we do not do that, we shall have a very “silo” debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is important that today’s debate is based on fact and reality. Given some things we have heard from outside commentators, and unfortunately from some hon. Members from time to time, one might think that we had a situation in which taxpayers in England are generously subsidising those in Scotland, and that Scottish MPs have been responsible for imposing legislation on residents of England against their will. That description is vastly at variance with reality, as hon. Members will know. Of course, I accept the straightforward reality that the level of Government spending per head in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as defined by Barnett, is slightly higher than that in England, taken as a whole, but the Barnett formula does not present the full picture. Indeed, Lord Barnett never suggested that it did.

The definitions of public spending in the different nations are not necessarily like for like. For example, water supplies in Scotland are in the public sector, whereas in England and Wales they are privatised, so in Scotland spending on water is counted as public expenditure, but in England and Wales it is not. The formula does not fully reflect the public expenditure involved in some of the activities of central Government and the state that are centred here in London. The activity of the state that we see in front of us every day in London generates an immense boost to the economy in the whole of the south-east of England. That is an economic stimulus that nowhere else in the UK enjoys to anything like the same degree.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Has not Lord Barnett himself said that the formula should not have continued for as long as it has?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

He did say that, but it did continue, and fairly successfully.

If one compares the relative figures for Government expenditure throughout the different parts of the UK, what is most striking is not the disparity between the averages in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as opposed to England, but the vast disparities within England. I have some sympathy with the complaint of the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) about the lack of Government spending in her constituency, because the south-east of England—her part of the country—gets two thirds less than average spending in London. London gets 20% above the average across the UK—higher than the relative advantages for Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Let me emphasise that just as I reject setting Scotland against England, I do not seek to set London against the rest of the UK. There are vast disparities of wealth within London, and the economic activity that it undertakes generates burdens as well. My point is that the Barnett formula is only part of the picture. It is a formula for spending, but not one based on a real needs assessment—that is widely accepted. For example, it does not take account of the costs for Government services of remoteness, or of levels of poverty or other social need. Nor does it take account of the contribution that different parts of the UK make to central Government revenues. Scotland is one of the highest contributors of taxation to central Government revenues—the third highest, I think, in the UK. Different areas and nations put more in; different areas and nations take different amounts out.

Let us get away from the idea that the Barnett formula is a subsidy for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. We are in a state where different nations and different parts of nations will contribute in varying degrees to Government revenue, and different nations and different parts of nations will see Government expenditure at varying levels. I welcome that, because I believe that the strength of the UK is that, with the right Government and the right policies, we can pool and share resources. Indeed, there has not been enough pooling and sharing of resources to tackle some of the real poverty that we see in communities in cities, regions and rural areas throughout the UK.

On English votes for English legislation, there is of course an anomaly. I am not for one minute diminishing the concerns that have been raised in the House, but I wonder how far they are shared among the general population of England. Obviously, MPs from England will know that better than I do.

I agree, however, with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) that this issue can be relatively simply dealt with and does not, in any sense, justify any delay in the further devolution that was promised before the referendum. There must not be a cherry-picking of certain bits of political reform that suit the short-term political interests of one or other political party. We can all point to the history of anomalies that this constitution—this state—has had over decades. In the old days, there was the situation with Northern Irish MPs being able to vote as supporters of the Conservative party. There is the whole anomaly, to put it mildly, of the House of Lords. We have to recognise that we need political reform to deal with the alienation of so many people from our political system, but it should not just be piecemeal. It needs to address House of Lords reform. Electoral reform needs to be back on the agenda. The whole issue of regional government in England and Wales needs to be taken seriously. There needs to be root-and-branch reform that is based on respect between the various nations of the UK, and a recognition of the seriousness of the political crisis that is facing politics across the UK.

Business of the House

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to continue to raise this issue. The Government have repeatedly raised their concerns. I did so as Foreign Secretary with Italian Ministers and with the Italian ambassador. Senior officials and Ministers continue to raise it. Our ambassador in Rome is seeking a further meeting with the Italian Education Minister and the head of the universities department to discuss the next steps. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will want to keep my hon. Friend up to date on this, as he has done in the past.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware from his previous role of the case of Mohammad Asghar, a 70-year-old man from Edinburgh who was sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy. Recently, Mr Asghar was severely injured in prison after being shot by a policeman. The Scottish Government have now indicated that they might be prepared to agree to a prisoner transfer, which could be a way forward. Will the Government listen sympathetically to that proposal and arrange for a Minister to issue an oral or a written statement to give us an update on the case?

[Mr Hague]

I do recall that very disturbing case, and the hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise it in the House and draw our attention to it again. I will have to refer his question to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and ask them to respond to him and to look at the idea that he has just promoted.

Devolution (Scotland Referendum)

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given that the result of the referendum showed clearly that Scotland was divided down the middle as to its future relationship with the rest of the UK, one of the main objectives of those involved in the Smith commission and the political process more generally must be to try to bring forward proposals that reflect as great as possible a consensus so that they have a reasonable chance of being acceptable to a substantial majority of opinion in the long run, so that they can endure. I have no illusions about that being a difficult objective, and I am sure it will not be possible to get everyone to agree, but I believe it should be possible to bring forward proposals that can obtain substantial support from the public, even if not from all the political parties, and that should be the objective of the Smith commission.

Clearly the starting point for such proposals should be the pledge to devolve more spending, tax and welfare powers to the Scottish Parliament, as set out in the vow agreed by the three UK party leaders before the referendum. There should be substantial devolution of tax matters, but at the same time we must maintain the principle of sharing and pooling resources throughout the UK, as that was a central point in the campaign—many of us made it a central case in our argument for maintaining the Union—and tax arrangements should recognise that. We should also be talking about a wide range of additional powers, and they have already been set out in some of the proposals put before the Smith commission.

I want to say something about what further devolution for Scotland means for the rest of the UK. I recognise that this is an issue in England, and I think it is possible to have proposals that do not undermine the unitary nature of this Chamber while at the same time giving greater scrutiny to MPs from England, although I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) that this should not be rushed through in a vote in a few weeks’ time without proper consideration of the potential implications and any unforeseen consequences.

Such measures in this House are not likely to be the only solution needed, and I suspect they might not meet the concerns of those who are calling for that change outside this House. What we need is a proper constitutional convention looking at devolution all around the UK, but also looking at issues like the constitution and reform of the House of Lords, and some of the wider political issues that are behind the alienation from the political process which was one of the main features of the referendum debate in Scotland and is clearly not restricted to Scotland alone.

Business of the House

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sure that people in York are only too aware of the risk of flooding, following the serious floods in 2007. He will know that the number of dwellings being built in areas of high flood risk is at its lowest since the land use change statistics began in 1989. To mitigate the risk of flooding, the Environment Agency is consulted on planning applications for areas that are at risk of flooding. In the last year for which figures are available, 2012-13, 99% of planning decisions on housing by councils were in line with the agency’s flood risk advice. I hope that that gives him some reassurance about the role of the Environment Agency in the decisions of his council.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

In Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions earlier, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), said that the reason for the delay in publishing the report on food banks was that it was going through the quality assurance process. The quality assurance process seems to be taking longer than the writing of the report. Perhaps I should ask for a debate on the quality of Government reports, but, in all seriousness, will the Leader of the House speak to his colleagues and get the report published, because this issue is of interest to many Members and the report will inform the debate on both sides of the House?

[Mr Lansley]

I had the benefit of hearing my hon. Friend’s reply to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) at DEFRA questions. I have also responded to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts) on this subject. We are ensuring that the report is in a position to be published. However, I am afraid that I am not in a position to say when that will happen.

Business of the House

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I hope the hon. Lady was in her place yesterday and able to hear the Prime Minister make it clear that this country is making the second biggest contribution to meeting the humanitarian needs of refugees from Syria, and proportionately we are doing more than anybody else to support those refugees. We are responding to and fully meeting our commitments to those seeking asylum, and as she knows, last year there were around 1,100 asylum applications from Syrian refugees. The Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that we will look at individual cases, but we will not do what some other countries have done who think that taking a relatively modest given number of refugees away from refugee camps somehow meets their obligations to the millions of refugees who want to be supported in their camps, and not to leave and give up hope of returning to Syria soon.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) called for a debate on welfare. We had a debate on welfare just 10 days ago, when the House of Commons voted by a majority of 123 in favour of a commission of inquiry into the Government’s welfare reform policies. When I asked the Leader of the House last week when he was going to establish the commission, he rather derisively told me that he had no plans to do so. The House voted for a commission. Will he to agree to set up such a commission, or is it the Government’s policy that Back-Bench motions are ignored and to be of no account whatsoever in this House?

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Gentleman imputes a motive to me that certainly was not there. He asked the question last week and I will repeat my answer today. The Government consider carefully all motions approved by this House. As I told him last week, I was not in a position to advise him that we had any plans to establish such a commission.

Business of the House

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Yesterday’s meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of Cyprus was very welcome, and the statement was an important one. I hope that, as a result, there will be opportunities for my ministerial colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to set out further details relating to this matter.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

On Monday, the House passed a motion, with massive all-party support, calling for a commission of inquiry into the effects on poverty of the Government’s welfare reforms. I know that the Leader of the House is a great defender of Back-Bench debates and motions. Will he tell us when the Government intend to establish such a commission of inquiry?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any positive response in that regard. Backbench Business Committee debates are important, and we continually look at the conclusions that are reached and the contributions to those debates. However, I cannot give him any specifics about the date of any commission.

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

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Francis]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), although I probably disagree with almost everything he has said.

I speak as the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. At the outset, I should declare some interests. I am a member, albeit inactive, of the National Trust. I also belong to Community, my union, a well respected campaigning organisation. I also declare, as a historical footnote, that more than 40 years ago I worked for the Trades Union Congress.

My Committee met this morning to consider its report on the Bill; its work, although not yet complete, is well advanced. I have been asked to make important points about part 2 as it relates to human rights on the issue of non-party campaigning. Notwithstanding the Government’s amendments, my Committee’s view is that the overall effect of part 2, on lower spending limits, lower thresholds for registration and increased numbers of campaigning activities, may well be a chilling and adverse effect on free speech and freedom of assembly at a particularly important time—the run-up to general elections.

In September, yesterday and today, I have told the House about my Committee’s concerns about unseemly haste; one member of my Committee—not me—described it as “appalling haste”. We believe that that has a potential impact on the human rights aspects in part 2.

The Bill purports to address matters of democratic process, especially transparency and lobbying, so it is a bit rich to tell the public that there is not sufficient time for them to be properly consulted. My Committee has been almost overwhelmed, not just by the late Government amendments but by the volume of public concern—from Oxfam, the TUC, the Electoral Commission, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, particularly with regard to non-party funding and campaigning. My Committee believes that there should be a democratic pause to allow the Government and Parliament to reflect on all the concerns about part 2 and to give time for consideration of our report when it is published very shortly.

The debate thus far has revealed the complexities and mysteries of non-party campaigning and funding, which needs to be properly and thoroughly explored inside and outside this House. Part 2—of a Bill of great democratic importance—should be properly scrutinised by both Houses. With all due respect to the other place—a non-elected place, important and valuable as it is—this House should also be given sufficient time.

When we reflect on the grave concerns expressed by large and small charities and organisations about non-party funding, we should remind ourselves of the people who make democracy work at the local level—the volunteers, the organisers and the people who demonstrate. Demonstrating is part of our democratic right. I joined the TUC 40-odd years ago in the week after the demonstration against the Industrial Relations Bill on 21 February. That was a very important occasion. I wonder whether its cost, if there had been a general election that year, would have fallen on the TUC.

In my own constituency I think of Ted Clark, who died last night—a campaigner in many respects, not just a party political campaigner but an active member of his church and his trade union. I also think, in my neighbouring constituency, of Hefina Headon, who died at the weekend—a campaigner with the Air Training Corps and Banwen pony club and the secretary of the Neath, Dulais and Swansea Valley miners support group. These are the people—the volunteers—who could well be affected by this Bill, and it is an offence to them.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am sure that if the Government respond to my hon. Friend’s points they will assure the House that that is not the kind of organisation they aim to affect through the Bill. However, is not the fact that these real fears are out there even more reason why time should be taken to undertake this consultation, have this discussion, and do this debating and decision making properly?

[Dr Francis]

Indeed; that is the final point that I want to make. At this very late juncture, I implore the Government to have a democratic pause to allow them to allay these concerns. It would be an opportunity for both Houses to reflect not only on my Committee’s report but on the deep concerns of the many national and local organisations that have written to us. I think that our report will be more up to date than the Government’s position next week, because we will have taken on board all those concerns.

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

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David]

That is a fundamental concern. Due to the intricacies of the Bill and its convoluted nature, we suspect that many charities and campaigning organisations will say, “How on earth can we comply with this in all reasonableness? The best thing to do is not to do any campaigning at all.” That is our concern.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend will have noticed, as we all did, that the Minister said that draft amendments will be tabled on Report, which fortuitously is a few weeks away due to the parliamentary timetable. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we do not want those amendments to appear on the day of Report, or a couple of days before. They should be produced well in advance. Would it not be right for the Minister to give an indication of when the draft amendments will be tabled?

[Wayne David]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We would seriously hope that the Government are learning lessons from their very obvious mistakes. One of the most obvious mistakes is the complete absence of any prior consultation. Even at this stage, we genuinely hope that the Government will learn the lesson. As the Electoral Commission has said, having apparently promised this concession, the Government need to consider how best to clarify the position of controlled spending before putting any firm amendments to Parliament.

Surely it is now appropriate for the Government to withdraw the Bill in its entirety and open meaningful discussions with all who are affected by it. It is surely sensible to extricate Parliament from the mess the Government have got it into. If the Government were to do this, we as the Opposition would play a constructive role in helping to revise electoral law, which needs to be revised, so that big money is taken out of politics. But let me be clear: the Bill cannot be put right simply by modifying the definition of electoral activity in clause 26. There is a need carefully to look at schedule 3 and at all the categories listed therein.

Amendment 167, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), refers to staff costs. The Government have said that they wish to equate the rules of third sector spend with the rules on political party spend. Yet in schedule 3 voluntary organisations will have to take into account staff costs even though that is not the case for political parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) and new clause 4. However, before I speak briefly about that, I want to respond to the comments made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) at the beginning, because I am afraid to say that I largely agree with him.

I do not hold much of a brief for any of this Bill, but part 2 as it stands seems to be a very serious mistake. I am particularly concerned because it used to be a convention, at least when I came into the House, that we did not guillotine constitutional Bills, yet part 2 goes to the heart of our democracy and free speech, as demonstrated by the opponents to the Bill. I know of no previous Bill that had ranged against it Christian Aid and the British Humanist Association, Greenpeace and the Countryside Alliance, or the Royal British Legion and the Salvation Army. It is a Bill that has attracted opposition precisely because it goes to the heart of all that those organisations do—not what they stand for, but what they do and how they execute their duty in society.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Although it is not such a broad constitutional issue, is it not also the case that the points we have raised about the implications for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are genuine concerns, not just points we are making today, and that if we do not get them right, there is a danger that we will produce legislation that is, frankly, unworkable?

[Mr Davis]

That is why I start from my concern about the guillotine, because this is a Bill that in past decades—not past years, sadly—would have spent hours, days and weeks on the Floor of the House. It would have been preceded by a proper consultation, a cross-party agreement, a Green Paper and a White Paper—there was a White Paper, but as far as I could tell, it did not refer to part 2 at all. The Bill has not gone through what in my view would be a proper constitutional process and so will of course be subject to unintended consequences all over the place.

I accept that the Government will not have intended many of the consequences—I will come to some that they do intend in a minute. I accept that the deleterious consequences of the Bill were not intentional, but they arise directly from how the Government started the process. We had a brilliant report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, as chaired by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), which could have provided a basis. That Committee could have been the vehicle for the process. The hon. Gentleman is right: there will be deleterious consequences, most of them unintended, but most of them because of how we have addressed this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Lady provides a perfect illustration of the point that I was making. Parts of the Bill are so vague as to be nonsensical, and they will be open to all kinds of challenges. They are completely open to interpretation, and the words that she has just mentioned could mean 20 different things. It is exactly that kind of vague, ambiguous language that needs to be clarified. I worry that, at the end of the process, we shall be left with unnecessary complexity, unhelpful ambiguity and unintended consequences. I urge the Government to go back to the drawing board and take the time to consult properly with stakeholders on an appropriate and balanced set of measures to ensure that third parties can continue to contribute to the democratic process without having undue and disproportionate restrictions placed upon them.

I have particular concerns about the detrimental impact that the measures could have on civil society—and, in particular, on the voluntary sector—in Scotland. I shall not repeat the points made so eloquently by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) about the devolved Administrations and the disproportionate effect that the Bill could have on their legislative and electoral processes. This part of the Bill is a quagmire, and its consequences have not been adequately thought through. There has not been adequate consultation with key stakeholders, including elected parliamentarians in the Governments of the devolved Administrations, and it is important that we should take the time to go back and carry out that consultation properly.

One of the points that I made on Second Reading was that those third parties that are also charities are already regulated very effectively, and are explicitly prevented from engaging in party political activity. They are already significantly constrained in the activities they can undertake during an election period. In my extensive experience of the voluntary sector, charities—whether large or small—take those responsibilities seriously and tend to err on the side of caution when determining what they do when engaging with politicians and public policy processes in the run-up to elections.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The point has been raised about the possible effect of the provisions on the Scottish referendum. Is it not ironic that the Scottish charities regulator has confirmed that charities can participate and put forward their views on the issue of independence, given that that could come into conflict with the terms of the Bill? Incidentally, there is even a possibility that the Scottish Government could be considered a third party for the purposes of this legislation in the run-up to the referendum.

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point. There has been a carefully considered process in Scotland, involving a partnership between the Electoral Commission and other stakeholders, to ensure that we have a fair, democratic and open debate around the referendum. I agree entirely with him that it would be counter-productive if this legislation were to cut across that process. That is one more reason for us to go back and look at the process in more depth.

It is not just in the run-up to elections that charities and civil society organisations take these issues seriously—they take them seriously throughout the electoral cycle. Fundamentally, I do not think that charities should have to cope with an extra set of regulations that overlap so extensively with existing charity law and other forms of regulation that seem to be working well. Charity regulation is certainly working well in Scotland, and since the introduction of the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator in 2005, governance has been strengthened across the voluntary sector, and accountability has improved dramatically right across the sector in the most recent few years.

Charities play an enormously important role in our democratic process. They not only make the voices of their members and service users heard, but they actively influence and shape public policy in ways that are already much more transparent and accountable than is the case with corporate lobbying. I can think of numerous examples of pieces of legislation that have been actively enhanced by the input of charities, with far-reaching consequences for the quality of life of thousands of people. I think in particular of the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002, which was significantly amended by the efforts of stakeholders, including a range of small specialist health charities and large campaigning organisations working together to influence legislation and make it fit for the 21st century.

When I look back at the kinds of activities undertaken, fully transparently and accountably, by the charities involved in lobbying around that Bill, I can see that some of them would almost certainly have fallen within the terms of third-party campaigning proposed in the Bill. Some of the smaller organisations, particularly those with perhaps only one or two members of staff, advocating on behalf of small numbers of people perhaps with a rare condition, would simply have opted out of that discussion because they would not have had the resources to navigate the regulatory framework. That would have been to the enormous detriment of the legislation that finally emerged. As a society, we are all better off because of the inclusion of such organisations in the democratic process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Elan Jones]

That is absolutely right.

Many concerned voices were heard in last week’s debate and many thoughtful speeches, too, none more so than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who is Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I do not quite concur with one small aspect of his speech, however. He said that

“one of the most wonderful parts of my life experience as a Member of Parliament is when we come towards a general election, and all those different bodies start to get hold of us, lobby us, knock on our doors, phone us and send letters—‘Come to our meeting. You will not get our vote unless we know exactly what you are doing on this.’ Someone on the opposite side then says exactly the same thing”.—[Official Report, 3 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 205.]

In truth, although at times such meetings will be bliss itself and will be meaningful, sometimes they will frustrate and annoy many Members and the Government—any Government. That is why it is correct that the right of such organisations to do this must be protected at all costs so that they can put forward their view unhindered, without being entangled in red tape, and can speak truth to power unhindered by the certainties of this Bill.

I wonder how the Bill would affect the pro and anti-HS2 lobbies, the campaign for digital hearing aids, the campaign for the rights of Gurkhas to settle in this country and some of the campaigns run by the Royal British Legion.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Last week, 100 MPs were in the Chamber to take part in the “Get Britain Cycling” debate, in which Members from all parties said that we should attempt to get all the political parties to agree to that manifesto. Is that not a good example of exactly the kind of measure that could be hit by the Bill?

[Susan Elan Jones]

I agree totally.

I am sure that some Members will have read the beautiful article by the Royal British Legion’s director general Dr Simpkins in The Daily Telegraph last week, which told how:

“In 1921, a year before a General Election, The Royal British Legion successfully ran its first campaign, lobbying the Government to ensure that three-quarters of those employed on relief works were veterans of the First World War.”

Our tradition of charities being allowed to campaign on political issues germane to their charitable activities is at the heart of British life and our democracy. It has been established in case law since 1917, a year before universal male suffrage. Well before women had the vote, Lord Normand, in the case of Bowman v. Secular Society, held that a society whose predominant aim was not to change the law could be charitable when its campaign to change the law was merely a subsidiary activity. That tradition has a long pedigree in this country and I do not believe that it should be for tinkering politicians, perhaps fearful of the impact of Cameron and Clegg non-mania in 2015, to play with it.

Business of the House

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and it is absolutely right to follow up the matter from last week. Upstairs this morning, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards is taking further evidence on the mis-selling of interest rate swaps, forming part of its further inquiries into banking standards. In addition, I will talk to my colleagues about updating the House on what can be done to ensure that small businesses do not continue to be borne down by the cost of mis-sold policies of that kind.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that very point, I urge the Leader of the House to ensure that we do indeed get this type of report before the House. Many of the businesses concerned are in dire straits and need action and compensation now. They do not really want to wait for the outcome of reports and investigations by other Committees. Given that there are six weeks before the next Treasury questions, may we have a statement from a Treasury Minister about what can be done?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, which I completely understand. The length of time that it took for the FSA to undertake its investigation, and its explanation of the difficulties of investigating individual cases, demonstrate the scale of the problem in relation to any individual policy, but today’s report indicates the need for the sector across the board to try not to deepen the harm done to companies, in terms of the policies that they have taken up and also in terms of where they stand at present. I will consult my colleagues on possible opportunities for a debate, but it might also be possible to arrange one by means of an application to the Backbench Business Committee.