Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Things do not float around in No. 10; I am pleased to say that that is not the way No. 10 operates. The Prime Minister has received a letter this week from you, Mr Speaker—I am sure you will not mind my saying this—in which you asked for the appointment of Carol Mills to be delayed further until a clear way forward on the issue has been agreed. That is the current status of the letter, rather than any floating.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

In exactly two weeks’ time, we will be voting in the Scottish independence referendum. Next week is the last opportunity that the House has to meet before this momentous and historic occasion, yet there is not one iota of referendum-related business in the agenda for next week. Does this House no longer care about the referendum, or has it looked at the opinion polls and the momentum that is gathering and decided that it just wants to give up?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman must know that Members across the House care passionately about this matter, but this is a decision being made by the people of Scotland. The debate is taking place in Scotland, among the people of Scotland and in the Scottish media. The Prime Minister pointed out yesterday how much the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland want Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom. That is something about which nearly all of us in this House, with the exception of the nationalist parties, are clear. But if we were to debate these matters next week in the House of Commons, the hon. Gentleman would no doubt ask why we are debating them when the referendum campaign is taking place in Scotland. I appreciate that he needs to ask a question, but it was not a very logical one.

Points of Order

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

I was about to thank the Prime Minister and the 47 Back Benchers who questioned him, in 47 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time, which shows just what we can do when the questions and answers are pithy. But things would not be complete without points of order.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. Last Thursday, the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement on the radiation leak at the Government’s Vulcan nuclear reactor test establishment at Dounreay. He said that

“there has been no measurable change in the radiation discharge.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2014; Vol. 576, c. 1085.]

We have since learned that all the environment agencies throughout the UK have found a tenfold increase in radioactive emissions. Clearly, both cannot be right. Have you had any indication, Mr Speaker, whether either the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister will come forward to put the record straight? If it is the Prime Minister, may we also have an explanation as to why Scottish Ministers were not told and perhaps even an apology for that omission?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that I have had no indication from any Minister of an intention to make a statement on this matter. Whether intentions will change on the back of the hon. Gentleman’s observations, I leave time and speculation by colleagues to reveal. We will leave it there for today, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.

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

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I participate in this debate with great sadness, because within the last hour the funeral has taken place of Terry Butkeraitis, a miners’ leader and community organiser, and a legendary figure at the Glastonbury festival. Terry dedicated his life to the collective organisation of working people and proved that coal miners are as innovative, entrepreneurial and business-savvy as anyone else in society. Without question, Terry would have wanted me and his other friends to be in the Chamber to vote against further attacks on the unions, British values and our democracy.

When the Deputy Leader of the House listed what he claimed were the achievements of the Government’s openness, I thought I heard Terry heckling from that public gallery on high—demanding to know, if this Government are to show openness, where the documents relating to the miners’ strike are. We are still awaiting those documents.

Listening to the Deputy Leader of the House, I wondered whether his inability to explain the Bill in his 47 minutes was because he does not have a special adviser to tell him what it is all about. For some reason, I have never been a special adviser—I cannot understand why I have never been invited to apply for such a position; I do not know where they are advertised—but I have had opportunities over the years to have words with them. Frankly, the idea that any Member believes that special advisers and civil servants around Ministers do not have excessive influence over legislation is nonsense.

I will spare his blushes, because he did it for the right reasons, but one of the ministerial colleagues of the Deputy Leader of the House came up to me just last week and asked me to assist in tabling parliamentary questions to influence his civil servants and doubtless his special advisers to ensure that the legislation came forward more promptly.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

What did you say?

[John Mann]

Hansard will prove whether or not I did, and it may even identify the Minister.

Such things are almost incongruous to us in this House; perhaps it is less clear to people outside the Chamber that that is how business operates here. If someone says to me, “I’ve got a great idea to amend legislation. How do I get it through?”, particularly if my party was in power and I therefore knew and could track down the special advisers, the first thing I would say is, “Here’s the list of the people with influence. You’ve got to get to them, because Ministers’ time is so dictated by civil servants—it is deliberately jam-packed—that if you want any serious dialogue, you’ve got to get in first.”

Ministers of course ratify decisions and good ones ensure that their decisions go through, but, frankly, I can think of numerous examples where that has not been the case. Going to special advisers and civil servants, although usually with general ministerial consent—perhaps not from the particular Minister, but from No. 10 Downing street or the Minister’s boss—is precisely how someone can get changes made.

Anyone who has participated in a Public Bill Committee knows that. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) will remember that we sat on the Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill for what seemed like a year. I tabled an amendment about endangered species and wildlife. External bodies wanted it, and the Minister and colleagues from both sides of the Committee were very supportive of it, but the Minister’s response was, “Well, we need to check the details.” The only reason we got the amendment accepted was that we sat down with a special adviser with access to civil servants, and with the civil servants themselves, to clear every dot and comma so that when I got up in Committee, with support from all sides, the Minister said that the Government accepted the principle and would come back with their own wording—strangely, it was identical to mine—and it was later presented as their amendment. That is how it works here. If we are to control these lobbyists, of course the special advisers and civil servants—whoever is in power—have to be included.

I will finish by raising one other issue. I have in my possession documents showing that in recent times a senior, well-known lobbyist has set up a fake company—or a real company, but using a false name and date of birth. How will the Minister deal with that under the Bill? When such a case eventually comes before him and other Ministers, how will they deal with its unethical nature, and how will they respond to the influence of such a lobbyist over the Government? Does he agree that anyone who does that should automatically be prevented from having any access to any Ministers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

Lords amendments 26, 27 and 108, with which the Government disagree, relate to constituency limits and staff costs. I ask the House not to support amendments tabled by hon. Members to Lords amendments 20, 55, 59, 75 and 99.

After the Bill was last seen by the House, during consideration in the House of Lords, the Government undertook a further six-week consultation with interested parties—on part 2 of the Bill—that built upon the Government’s already considerable engagement with many campaigning groups. During the consultation, which took place between Second Reading and the Committee stage of part 2 of the Bill in the Lords, the Government held detailed, important and exhaustive—and sometimes exhausting—talks with some 50 organisations. Those discussions informed the Government amendments, with which the Lords agreed. As the House will have discerned from my opening remarks, many amendments—100 in total, encompassing 20 substantive issues—to part 2 have returned from their lordships, and we propose to accept all but three of them. The amendments, agreed in consequence of our discussions in the Lords, represent a considerable body of work undertaken in that House, and we are grateful to their lordships for that work.

The changes are designed to address the practical concerns raised by third parties, while preserving the important principles of transparency that underpin part 2. The amendments reduce the burden on smaller third parties who campaign at elections, ease the transition to the new regime and clarify the regulatory rules. That last point is important, because it became clear during the consultation that concerns often stemmed from a lack of awareness of the existing rules in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

As the House will recall, the PPERA established a framework for the regulation of non-party campaigning at elections, and many of the representations derived from an objection not to the Bill, but to how the PPERA rules, in the view of those making the representations, would have worked. This debate has enabled us to introduce amendments that meet many of the concerns raised, to clarify how charities and campaigners can legitimately campaign on policies and issues without falling subject to the election law regulatory regime and, where they may fall to be regulated, to reduce the burdens of compliance and ensure that small-scale campaigns are exempt from that regime.

The House will recall that before the Bill was sent to the Lords, we made significant changes to it here. In particular, we returned to the definition of “controlled expenditure” in the PPERA—in other words, expenditure

“reasonably regarded as intended to…promote or procure the electoral success”

of a party or candidate—but narrowed it slightly so as not to include the additional limb about enhancing the standing of parties or candidates. We had, therefore, already made some clarifications to the Bill before we sent it to their lordships.

Of those changes, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, one of the largest and most prominent umbrella bodies representing charities and the voluntary sector, said:

“The government’s commitment to abandon the change to the test of what constitutes non-party campaigning is a significant step in the right direction.”

[Pete Wishart]

The Leader of the House knows, because we have told him often enough, that on these issues we actively encourage the participation of the third sector in Scotland. In the light of that, why have the Scottish Government not received one reply from this Government regarding the Bill, particularly concerning its effect on our referendum and on Scottish charities?

[Mr Lansley]

The Bill, of course, will have no effect on the referendum in September. I do not recall receiving a letter from Ministers in the Scottish Government, although I do recall receiving letters from the First Minister of Wales, which I replied to. If Ministers have received any such letters, I shall gladly take advice on what the reply has been.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am very glad to acknowledge the excellent work of the Theatre Royal in Plymouth, for which the Government provide more than £1 million a year via Arts Council England. We also support Attik Dance Ltd, the Institute of Digital Art and Technology, the Plymouth Arts Centre and the Barbican theatre, all of which are in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

The issue of the distribution of arts funding is inevitably complex, but the Arts Council is seeking to achieve a better balance between public funding and lottery investment throughout the country. I cannot promise a debate at present, but other Members may share my hon. Friend’s interest in the issue, and may wish to ask the Backbench Business Committee to allocate time for a debate on it. My hon. Friend will recall that the Opposition Front Bench chose arts and the creative industries as the subject of a debate in the middle of last year.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

May I appeal to the Leader of the House not to allow any further debates on the commemoration of the first world war? I am sure that much of the nation has been appalled by attempts to politicise the event over the past week, and by the unedifying trench warfare that has emerged between the Government and the Labour Front Bench. May I appeal to both Front Benches to cool it, to show some dignity and respect, and to ensure that the centenary is marked sensitively and with decorum?

[Mr Lansley]

I felt that the debate that took place in the House late last year exemplified the importance of commemorating the events of 100 years ago. Although I cannot confirm that there are plans for another debate on the subject, I can say that there is probably a case for further such debates in the future.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will have a discussion with my hon. Friend about how we can ensure that if she and other Members have, during the passage of the Water Bill, a desire to table amendments, there is provision for them to do so.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

May we have an urgent statement on EU membership and immigration, but this time can we have it from the person at the Dispatch Box who is actually pulling the strings of the Conservative party and setting the agenda, which can only be Nigel Farage?

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Gentleman is living in some kind of fantasy world. I can assure him that Nigel Farage is not pulling the strings. If I may revert to being a constituency Member of Parliament for this purpose, I take particular pleasure in the fact that before the last county council elections there was one UKIP county councillor in South Cambridgeshire and after it there were none.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Indeed, I think the House will be grateful to the Standards Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for an exceptionally thorough report. Having read it, I looked last weekend for any recognition in The Sunday Times of its findings, but found none. I rather regret that. If the press is rightly quick to criticise, it should equally be ready to admit when it has got it wrong.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

May we have a debate about the cost of Government hospitality, particularly when this week Scottish celebrities are tripping over themselves to snub the Prime Minister’s lavish St Andrew’s day Union bash? We learned this morning that even the Prime Minister has decided to snub his own event. Does the Leader of the House have any idea who is actually going to attend?

[Mr Lansley]

I have to confess that I have no idea who will attend it.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point that I suspect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be familiar with and sympathetic to, given his constituency interest. I will draw the further point relating to transport to his attention, and he might like to respond to my hon. Friend.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

May we have a statement about what is happening with the Chilcot inquiry? It seems like an age since it was established and took its evidence, and we learn today that there has been a further blockage in obtaining correspondence between Tony Blair and George Bush from the Cabinet Secretary. Surely the Chilcot inquiry should get everything that it requires so that we can get to the bottom of why we went into that disastrous illegal war?

[Mr Lansley]

I regret that I am not in a position to comment about that. I have read about this in the newspapers, but that is literally all I know about whether information is being sought by the Chilcot inquiry. I will talk to my colleagues and see whether we can update the House on the timetable although, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is not in the hands of the Government as such.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Fortunately, he has done so in good time for his proposal to be considered before the World cup finals—while I was laid up, one of my pleasures was watching England play Poland. I will raise the matter with my hon. Friends at the Home Office, because there have been occasions in the past when it has been thought appropriate to have exemptions to licensing arrangements to recognise the time at which such major sporting events take place.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

May we have a debate about the membership of this House? We now have the incredible spectacle of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the former Prime Minister, describing himself as “an ex-politician”. How can someone be a Member of this House and an ex-politician at the same time?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot account for the views of the former Prime Minister. “Politician” is an interesting description, but as Members of Parliament we are all here with a responsibility to represent our constituents, both in the constituency and—in my view—here in Westminster.

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

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for being so co-operative.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is unfortunate that the Deputy Leader of the House has not had the opportunity to address my very important amendments 2 and 3, which were part of this group of amendments. I very much support the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and we will support him in the Lobby tonight.

I do not have an opportunity to talk about Scotland, which is what I wanted to talk a little bit about before I got on to my own amendments, other than to say what a dog’s breakfast the Bill has concocted on issues connected with the referendum. The failure to see this is a travesty on the Government’s part. The fact that we have the same expenditure threshold as Northern Ireland is a total disgrace. Northern Ireland has a population of 1.8 million. We have a population of 5.2 million, which is more than double, yet once again we are lumped in with the same threshold.

I shall speak briefly to my amendments 2 and 3. It has surprised me that there has been very little talk about big money and the House of Lords. One of the defining features of the previous Parliament was the cash for honours crisis. It was a disgrace that a sitting Prime Minister was interviewed by the police because there was a belief that millions of pounds had changed hands for a place in that place down the road. The police eventually did not pursue the matter, not because they could not find particular evidence, but because they believed that it was not in the public interest.

The public were appalled by cash for honours, but the Bill does absolutely nothing to address big money in the House of Lords. Only China’s National People’s Congress is larger than that big bloated Chamber, which has 786 Members, but in their wisdom they decided that it required another 30 Members. When we look at a list of those 30 new Members, we see that—surprise, surprise—£1.26 million had been donated in the last round of honours. The public will be aghast that that has been ignored and that the Bill does not even touch on cash for honours.

I will explain what I propose very quickly, because I know that the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) is still to speak. We have seen £1.26 million donated by the 30 new Members of the upper House. Sir William Haughey is among them, as is Sir Anthony Bamford and Howard Leigh, all Labour or Tory donors. Do not think the Liberals get off lightly, because they have already suggested a few Members who have given them significant amounts of money over the years. This is a cash cow for the UK parties and it has to stop.

We cannot have this as a feature of our democracy. The fact that someone can donate to a political party and then be rewarded with ermine in the unelected House of Lords, which the hon. Member for Nottingham North hopes might fix this mess of a Bill, is absurd. Is that any way to run a democracy in what is the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world? There will soon be 1,000 of these people if we do not do something about it. I do not know how much money that would bring in for the UK parties, but I suggest that it would be a lot.

My gentle little amendments are all about trying to address at least some of those concerns. I do not have time to go through them in detail, because I see that Labour Front Benchers are getting twitchy. I will not push this to a vote, but let us look at what goes on with big money and cash for honours. It is a disgrace and the public are appalled, so let us stop it.

[Angela Smith]

I put on the record once again the declarations of non-financial interests that I made in Committee.

As we made clear in Committee, many of the clauses in part 2 of the Bill depend for their validity on clause 26, which we have just discussed. We were assured then that the Government would think again about that clause, but the consequence of their rethink appears to be a loosening of the gag, and a gag is still a gag. Therefore, the Bill could still have a chilling effect on the third sector and is still, in effect, a gagging Bill designed to insulate the governing parties from the challenges that are always part of a healthy democracy. As we have just heard in the debate on clause 26, the Government’s amendments still leave the third sector and the Electoral Commission facing a great deal of uncertainty and ambiguity, which, combined with the measures in clause 27, will effectively dampen the third sector’s campaigning activity.

The Opposition have said repeatedly that we support taking the big money out of politics and having sensible controls on the money spent by third parties. We said that on Second Reading and in Committee. Earlier this afternoon my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) reiterated the big figures. In the 2010 general election, political parties nationally spent £31 million, compared with just £3 million spent by third-party campaigners. The biggest third-party spender spent a sum that equates to just 4% of the £17 million spent by the Conservative party.

We also made it clear in Committee that we understand and support the need to review the provisions contained in the 2000 Act. As the Electoral Commission has made clear, a review of the legislation relating to third-party spending in an election period would be useful. We support that, but we would support such a review in the context of a much more ambitious agenda relating to radical reform of spending by political parties in the election period. That is the proper way to deal with issues that are so important and fundamental to the health of our democratic process, as I said earlier.

However, not only does the Bill fail to deal with the first-order issue, reform of spending by political parties, but it has been brought forward in a rush. To make things worse, it has been amended inadequately. Even worse, the Bill did not get the pre-legislative scrutiny that it needed and deserved and it has enjoyed only minimal scrutiny in this House. Not only have the Government failed to tackle the big money in politics; they have also effectively manipulated the legislative process to minimise the proper, robust testing of the Bill needed to pinpoint its weaknesses and expose its badly thought through changes to the 2000 Act.

I say “expose” because our view is that the Bill remains a bad one. Part 2 is built on the shifting sands of the utterly inadequate clause 26. I challenge the Government to admit that the Bill is the wrong way to tackle reform of election spending and join us in going back to the drawing board, starting with meaningful negotiations on the reform of party political funding.

Clause 27 has caused huge consternation in the third sector. If it is passed into law, it will play a major part, along with the other clauses in part 2, in effectively gagging the third sector in election periods. In the year before the election, according to Helen Mountfield QC, the changes will have

“a chilling effect on the expression of views on matters of public interest by third sector organisations”.

She also said that

“The restrictions and restraints are so wide and so burdensome as arguably to amount to a disproportionate restraint on freedom of expression.”

None of the Government’s changes alters that fact.

The situation cannot be right for any modern, 21st-century democracy. The sceptical among us could be forgiven for thinking that in part 2—in clause 27 in particular—the Government appear to be trying to insulate their record and policies from legitimate, democratic criticism. Raising the thresholds for registration by third parties and dramatically reducing expenditure limits in any given election period undoubtedly poses a real threat to the legitimate role of third parties in ensuring that the voice of civic society is heard during the most critical point in the cycle that governs our democracy. One could argue that it is only in a general election that the people of our country truly hold power in their own hands. Consequently, it is crucial that we have the widest possible input into the debates in a general election period that are so essential to ensuring that informed choices are made by voters.

If the Bill had been law before the 2010 election, a number of high-profile third sector campaigns could have been curtailed by the combined provisions of clauses 26 and 27, as we pointed out in Committee. At the next election, if the legislation goes through, the National Union of Students could find it difficult to hold Members to account for their record on the tripling of student tuition fees.

We have tabled two amendments to clause 27. First, we propose the removal of the reduction in thresholds for registration of third parties. Our amendment 60 proposes a report from the Electoral Commission on the potential impact of the reduction in controlled expenditure by third parties in the context of existing limits for political parties’ spending. Clause 27 would therefore not come into force before such a report had been laid before Parliament.

It is still not too late. The Government could still withdraw the Bill and enter into meaningful negotiations with the other—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House seems to find amusing my mention of the prospect of meaningful negotiations on the reform of party political funding. Do the Government believe in such meaningful negotiations or not? The choice is on the table. We are committed to proper consultation and the scrutiny of proposals as they emerge in relation to party political funding and funding for the third sector, but the two must go together. That is why today we will support amendment 102.

It is absolutely clear from what we have just seen from the Leader of the House that the Government have no intention of engaging in such meaningful negotiations. If they will not do that today, I am confident that the other place will ensure that the Bill gets the parliamentary time it deserves and the scrutiny it desperately needs.

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

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is ignoring the detail of the Bill and carrying on with the absurd scaremongering to which we have been listening for more than a week. A farmer in my constituency who is in receipt of subsidies would have to register as a third party and, according to the terms of clause 27, spend more than £5,000 to be in any way affected by my amendment. If only the farmers in my constituency were so rich that they were scattering £5,000 hither and yon, my own campaign might be the beneficiary of such largesse.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman famously campaigned with a notable third party—his nanny—in the Glenrothes by-election. If she was in receipt of payment from the hon. Gentleman, would she have been in contravention of what his amendment suggests?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is a gloriously roundabout way of examining this issue and it gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to a wonderful nanny who campaigns for me and who is now hard at work looking after my four children, which is a great thing for her to be doing. She was a volunteer when I campaigned in Glenrothes and therefore would in no sense have been caught by this clause. Although any payment that is made to her does come from me, it is not money that I receive from the public.