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

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Allen]

It is a fact of life that Oppositions become Governments and rapidly leave behind their commitments to help the House to become part of the democratic process. I urge the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the coalition parties’ manifesto processes are clear about the changes that we want to see.

We are now being given only four hours in which to discuss these matters. There was an unprecedented pause in the legislation, albeit only for a few weeks, to allow proper discussion to take place in the second Chamber, yet we are now being given only four hours in which to synthesise that work that happened in the other place. No one would argue that that is appropriate or adequate. We have not even had a chance to discuss the timetable, as the programme motion was not debateable. We have had no chance even to make this point, other than through the generosity of the Chair in allowing me to talk about it now. Technically, the House has not been allowed to debate the inadequacy of having only four hours for debate at the end of this Bill.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I have a petition here from 190,553 people who object to the Bill. Does my hon. Friend think that those people will have any understanding of why the Leader of the House is forcing this business through in less than four hours?

[Mr Allen]

People out there do not have any such understanding, but I will go further and say that even some of the charities and voluntary sector organisations involved do not understand it. Indeed, I will go even closer to home and ask how many Members of Parliament understand how this process has actually worked over the past 24 hours. Do they understand how a Bill can be debated in the second Chamber and then pushed back here and given two working hours for consideration of the work that the other place has carried out at some length? That work, as well as the work of the commission that was set up by people who are annoyed about this process, and all the evidence taking have all gone by the board.

This process is holding the House in contempt, and that needs to be recognised not just by the people in the lobbying industry but by the more than 10,000 organisations under the umbrella of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. Those organisations come from all parts of the political spectrum. I imagine that every Member in the Chamber is associated with a trust, charity or voluntary organisation that will feel the impact of the Bill. Those organisations have been treated in a way that we should not regard as acceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman is correct. I have already said that we welcome some of the changes to the registration and threshold levels, but there is still concern among charities about the impact this change could have and the Lords amendment simply clarifies and improves that element of the Bill.

There is no desire in this House to create a regulatory system that is impossible to abide by. We do not want to stifle charities or the other voluntary and citizens’ organisations that are often the bedrock of our communities with further unnecessary red tape and changes to their accountancy structure. Many such organisations rely on volunteers, but they have to try to cost the time of their volunteers.

I believe that the Lords amendment is a compromise. The Opposition share the preference that the Electoral Commission has expressed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, the Chair of the Select Committee, reminded us earlier, the Electoral Commission said that for the 2015 election it would prefer all staff costs to be removed. The amendment does not go as far as that recommendation, as it would merely count for background staff costs in relation to certain activities that are being brought into regulation.

It is clear that some costs should be accounted for, such as those with an indirect relation to the canvassing of voters. It seems to me that it would not be very difficult to identify those costs, but organising a meeting, travelling to a venue or setting up a press conference might take merely a few minutes and it would be absurd to expect small and medium-sized organisations to have to account for that time, too. We see the amendment as a tidying up exercise that could save valuable time and money for charities and voluntary organisations while maintaining the purpose of transparency and accountability for those activities that relate directly to elections.

When the amendment was considered in the other place, only three peers who were not from the Government Benches voted against it. The Government were defeated, and on that basis I urge them to listen. Lord Tyler, the Liberal Democrat peer and a former long-standing Member of this House, made a powerful case, saying:

“Bluntly, I do not think that anyone cares if a policy officer, whose job for the rest of the year is something completely different, spends a little time booking a room for an election rally, or incurs costs travelling to it…if the regulations go through without us thinking about the implications, they could unnecessarily tie up campaigners in accounting for their time—and, worse still, could deter some from campaigning at all.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 280.]

[Steve McCabe]

Surely the problem is not about the amount of money. The danger is that the Government are completely ignoring the fact that small charities believe that the Government are setting out to tie them up in knots and prevent them from expressing opinions that they might find difficult. That is why this is regarded as an attack on freedom. Is that not the problem?

[Stephen Twigg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why throughout our discussion of the Bill we have used the phrase “chilling effect”. There are the direct effects of the legislation, but in a sense the greater concern is the one of which he has reminded us—its broader effect on the ability of civil society and citizens to participate in debates in the run-up to elections.

Let me refer to other contributions in the other place. Lord Cormack—Patrick Cormack, a Conservative Member of this House for 40 years—urged the Government to take this step. He was supported by his Conservative colleague Lord Northbrook. They supported the amendment and argued that it would make life a lot easier for campaigners and would therefore give citizens a voice. I urge the Government to reconsider and, if they will not, I urge the House to stand with the other place on this amendment.

Let me move on to constituency limits. We are supposed to be addressing the issue of big money in politics. Bearing down on third party spending while leaving political party spending unreformed seems to me to be unfair and does not represent the radical reform we are looking for. Just now, the Leader of the House spoke about party spending at the 2010 general election. The biggest third-party spender spent 4% of the amount spent by the Conservative party at the last election—4%. If the Government are serious about taking the big money out of politics, they need to confront their reliance on a tiny number of wealthy donors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen McPartland]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very political point and I want to confine my remarks to the amendments.

Earlier, we heard an exchange between the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House regarding Unison and small local charities. The reality is that we need to stop the trend of large third party organisations—in the United States, they are called super PACs, or political action committees—attacking a small number of 90 to 100 constituencies that determine who wins the general election and will form the next Government. That is something that all hon. Members should be in favour of.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman provide some evidence for that assertion, which is the most ludicrous thing I have heard this afternoon?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

As a member of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, I shall speak in support of the amendments we tabled, which would further enhance some of the Lords amendments. I welcome the amendments made in the House of Lords and I want to acknowledge that the Government have listened to some concerns. In particular, the Deputy Leader of the House made a visit to Belfast and heard from a number of groups, large and small, about the range of concerns they had. He signalled some of the adjustments that needed to be made and followed through on some of them, but limitations remain on others. People were pleased to have that direct hearing, but they are not necessarily satisfied that the Bill’s current shape and scope allays all their concerns. They are particularly concerned about the Government’s attempt to overturn Lords amendments 26, 27 and 108. That is what is providing the residual apprehension or concern about how things will go.

Some amendments were tabled, on the Select Committee’s behalf, by our Chairman, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). Some propose to take some of the Lords amendments further and to de-clutter by reducing the red tape and providing a more sensible application and interpretation of the Bill. That is what the amendments are about; they are not about creating any gaping loopholes for big money to surge in and influence election campaigns, or indeed other things.

The hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) said that he had had no word from any of the small charities and other small groups in his constituency. I have had word from a great many, not just in my constituency but well beyond. Moreover, I have heard from no one about big money being thwarted. This is a major worry for groups who want to be involved in positive campaigns—not to influence election outcomes, but, perhaps, to influence people’s input by encouraging them to participate in elections and think and ask about the issues that they entail. Usually, in the year before an election campaign they are encouraging parties to make manifesto commitments.

[Steve McCabe]

In all his research on the Bill, has the hon. Gentleman come across any justification for the restriction to 2% of the maximum spend? Is there a rationale for it, or did the Government pluck it out of thin air?

[Mark Durkan]

I think that it may have been the latter. I have heard no significant or understandable rationale on which I have been able to rely.

While I accept that, in theoretical and intellectual terms, we want to ensure that we are proof against the PAC model in the future, I think that if we really want to prevent big money from influencing election campaigns, we ought to be legislating against what people such as Lord Ashcroft are able to do with their money, and its impact—its targeted impact—on particular constituencies. But of course that is not happening.

As for the legitimate third-party campaigning that we are discussing in the context of Northern Ireland, it is not influencing the outcome of elections, but is serving as a positive additive to politics, and helping to move our politics on. Money is not used to launch rallies aimed at mobilising voting in a particular direction, and encouraging people to vote for this or that party. People are generally encouraged to create hustings in order to improve the quality of debate, and to widen the range of issues that are discussed beyond the usual binary divide in Northern Ireland.

We should not be legislating in the pretence that some big problem or subversive interest is at work, and we should not be legislating in ways that disable the healthy and legitimate engagement in politics that I thought we all wanted to encourage.

Lords amendment 16 agreed to.

Lords amendments 17 and 104 to 107 agreed to.

Schedule 3

Controlled Expenditure: Qualifying Expenses

Motion made and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 108.—(Mr Lansley.)

Business of the House

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I was not aware of the role of Northamptonshire police but I am interested to hear about it and I entirely endorse what he has to say about the merits of such diligent police work. The case also demonstrates the importance of the NCA’s focus on some of the issues that are of greatest concern to us all, including child exploitation. The nature of the internet has made it possible for some crimes to be perpetrated across the world and some measures, including the recent ones in Canada, can, along with the international co-operation of which our NCA is a part, give us heightened effectiveness in tackling such organised crime.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Why has the Home Secretary not made a statement to the House on the astonishing admission that police crime figures are fiddled to the point of being totally unreliable? Does the Leader of the House agree that that dreadful state of affairs needs to be addressed urgently?

[Mr Lansley]

I think we all agree that it is important that recorded crime statistics are as robust as they possibly can be. One of the first things we did when we came into office was to transfer responsibility to an independent Office for National Statistics. It is doing its job, and that is a reflection of an important step that the coalition Government took. The Home Secretary asked the inspectorate to carry out an audit in June of the quality of crime recording in every police force, and only last week she wrote to chief constables emphasising that the police must ensure that crimes are recorded accurately and honestly. It is worth noting that the separate and wholly independent crime survey for England and Wales, endorsed again yesterday by the ONS, also shows a more than 10% reduction in crime over the same period from 2010. Crime now stands at its lowest level since that survey began in 1981. The evidence is clear that police reform is working and crime is falling.

Business of the House

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. I think that motorists in general can take heart from the way in which the Government have ensured that additional costs are not loaded on to them. Had the previous Government still been in office, fuel duty would have been an extra 20p per litre by the end of this Parliament as a consequence of their fuel escalator, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken away. I also think that the work of the Office of Fair Trading on motor insurance claims offers the prospect of relief to motorists in terms of their insurance premiums, as does the Ministry of Justice’s work on the response to whiplash.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Further to questions on local government spending, I see that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is to be given a new role as the head of Minitrue, to guard against the risks of doublethinking in our local authorities. Given the discrepancies in the answer to yesterday’s urgent question on local government spending, might it not be an idea to start with a debate on the accuracy of answers given to Members of the House?

[Mr Lansley]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government sets out to speak in plain English and in terms that are entirely accurate.

Business of the House

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend does good work to raise his constituents’ concerns. Obviously that is not a matter for the Government directly, but I understand that the works proposed for January are to install a pedestrian crossing on Warwick’s High street, although no decision will be made by the council until 22 November, when the portfolio holder concerned is expected to make a final decision on whether the works will proceed. That is a matter for the local highways authority, Warwickshire county council. I know that my hon. Friend will have raised it with the council and will continue to do so, but raising it here today might help its considerations.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The Government have been celebrating a huge increase in sanctions against jobseeker’s allowance claimants. In order to have a fuller picture and to be confident that there are indeed grounds for celebration, may we have a debate on the reasons for those sanctions, the number of appeals pending and the outcomes of the appeals heard so far?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman might wish to raise those issues during Work and Pensions questions on Monday 18 November. I do not think that it is a matter of celebrating sanctions. I think it is important for us all that we focus the state’s resources on supporting those in need, whether that arises from disability or relative vulnerability, and those genuinely seeking work. It is therefore important that those who should be seeking work are genuinely doing so.

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

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I wonder why, if there was a particular situation relating to a particular constituency, it would be wrong for a disproportionate amount of energy to be focused on that constituency. Surely in this country we have a general election, but within that we have 650 individual elections, and if there were special, unique features associated with a particular constituency and an argument going on there, it would not be unreasonable to have a different expenditure level in that seat.

[Tom Brake]

I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would agree that election campaigns were about political parties fighting together to secure the election of one of the candidates, and that if, for instance, an industrialist who was very pro-fracking decided that he or she wanted to unseat a parliamentary candidate who was anti-fracking and was prepared to spend just under £1 million under the current legislation in unseating that candidate, the hon. Gentleman would not support that. We certainly do not want to allow that to happen.

Further, also under subsection (6)—

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

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Given the seriousness of the duty that is imposed on assurers, I wonder what penalty might be incurred by an assurer who deliberately or negligently failed to observe his responsibilities in respect of confidentiality.

[Ian Murray]

Under the Bill as it stands, the assurer can be removed, but owing to the weakness of the provisions relating to data protection, it is not clear whether he can be automatically removed if he does not abide by the Data Protection Act. Perhaps the Minister will be able to answer that question. Our amendments are intended to give trade unions the power to remove an independent assurer if they feel that he is causing a trade union data controller to be in breach of his duties.

Let me now deal with the question of whether clause 37 is compliant with article 11. The first issues that emerged from the Sunday Times v. United Kingdom case were “legitimate aim” and “pressing social need”. The Government’s discussion paper states:

“at present complaints to the Certification Officer (CO) about the register can only be made by trade union members and no-one else. In addition, members only have a right to see whether and how their own details are recorded. This means it is difficult for members to make a complaint in relation to the accuracy of the membership register as a whole.”

Liberty rightly argues that that is not a legitimate aim, as the position is already adequately covered by current legislation, and

“the independent scrutineer”

—for whom the Bill also provides—

“is required to examine the entirety of register of their own volition and report any issues to the union.”

That brings us back to the arguments relating to clause 36. Again, these provisions already exist in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act. The same reasoning lies behind amendment 110, which aligns clause 37 and provision for the appointment and removal of assurers—which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe)—with the obligations conferred on scrutineers by section 49(1) of the Act. Any individual challenge to the regulator must involve investigation of the accuracy of the register as a whole, not just the member’s own incorrect entry. The current framework in section 24 of the Act allows for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, although he puts it somewhat differently than I would.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) referred to how the appointment of a duly appointed assurer could be terminated. Amendment 119 is simple. Under proposed new section 24ZC(3) an assurer’s appointment can be terminated if

“(a) a resolution has been passed at a general meeting of the trade union appointing somebody else instead or providing expressly that the person is not to be re-appointed”—

whatever that means—or



“(b) the person has given notice to the union in writing of the person’s unwillingness to be re-appointed”

or

“(c) the person is not qualified for the appointment in accordance with section 24ZB”.

If he is not qualified, how can he be sacked? He should not have the job in the first place. This is an outrage. It just needs some common sense to row back from these provisions.

[Steve McCabe]

On page 4 of the Government’s publication, “Reducing Regulation Made Simple”, the Government promise to free civil society groups from “unnecessarily burdensome regulation” so that they can “innovate, diversify and grow”. Shall we get the Minister a copy before we make any further progress on the Bill?

[Ian Lavery]

That would be helpful; it could be part of the consultation process, which has been sadly lacking for this Bill.

The fourth way of getting rid of a duly appointed assurer is if

“(d) the person has ceased to act as an assurer by reason of incapacity.”

That is fair enough. However, Opposition amendment 109 sets out additional conditions under which an assurer may not be re-appointed, to allow a union to terminate the appointment of an assurer if

“(e) The person has breached the confidentiality of the Trade Union, or

(f) The person is in breach of his statutory duty or the terms of his appointment, by reason of incapacity or for any other reason which in the reasonable opinion of the union justifies his removal, or

(g) There are any other reasonable circumstances where the continuation of the assurer would be deemed inappropriate.”

That is fair. If a trade union has complied with the legislation and appointed an assurer, it should be up to the trade union to get rid of the assurer in those circumstances.

I could speak all day on the amendments—[Hon. Members: “Go on!”]—but others wish to speak. The Bill is totally flawed. I have no confidence in the clause, but it could have been worse if the assurer were appointed by someone else. If the assurer had been imposed on trade unions, that would have presented a bigger difficulty. Perhaps someone can tell me what would happen if the trade unions change their rulebooks, which in my view they should not need to do. They should not be dictated to by Government legislation.

The rulebook governs the trade union. It is the Bible of that trade union. What happens if, once the Bill is passed, Lenny McCluskey rings me up and says, “Mr Lavery, would you be an assurer for Unite?”? Would I be within my rights to say, “Of course I would”? Am I independent? Could I say, “Lenny, how much will you pay us?”? That is how daft the clause is. Where is the independence? Is anyone who was elected democratically by the rulebook of a union subject to challenge by the Secretary of State if they become an assurer? Do they have to be accepted by someone in Government to validate their independence, or can the unions pick who they want, pay them what they want, get what they want and submit what they would normally send in for the AR21?

Business of the House

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will understand when I say that these matters are the responsibility of the prosecuting authorities, and that inside the Government the Attorney-General is responsible for them, not individual Ministers. In so far as we express a view, it is best for us to leave it to the Attorney-General to look at such issues with the CPS.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Given the sad news in today’s The Sun that Birmingham, once the city of a thousand trades, has broken into the top five jobless blackspots in the country for the first time since records began, is it not time we had a debate on the need for a growth strategy for the whole nation rather than just London and the south-east?

[Mr Lansley]

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that is not the experience of Members across the country, who are seeing an increase in employment. There has been a 1.4 million increase in people in employment in the private sector, which is very encouraging. There are more women in employment than ever before, and the proportion of households in which nobody is in work has been reduced to the lowest we have seen. That is encouraging progress. It inevitably varies across the country, but the regional growth fund and the efforts we are making will make a big difference. I know how much he will also look forward to High Speed 2 enabling growth in the regions of the United Kingdom through access to markets and opportunities.

Business of the House

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

That is an important point. In fact, I will raise it with my friends in the Department for Work and Pensions and ask them to respond. In many constituencies Jobcentre Plus does a very good job, but we should be tireless in trying to ensure that we match people out of work to the unprecedentedly high number—more than 500,000—of vacancies. It would be really good news if we did that.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The whole country can see the IPSA car crash unfolding. We all know that the Prime Minister will be forced to intervene eventually, so why do we not have a debate before the summer recess on what we need to do to amend the IPSA rules and put this fantasy proposal to bed now?

[Mr Lansley]

I repeat to the hon. Gentleman and the House that just four years ago—not a long time ago—this House passed legislation to create an independent body. Many of the problems emerging from this issue stem from the simple fact that Members are not willing to let go. We no longer have a say on our pay and pensions. We can express our view, but we do not determine them. It would be immensely to the benefit of the House and the public debate if that were recognised by the public and the press. We do not have a say: IPSA has the say. Go and express views to them. We will do so on a personal and party basis.

Business of the House

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I know that work has been done previously both in Wiltshire and in neighbouring authorities to try to secure that sort of collaboration between authorities in order to deliver savings to all through the rationalisation of back offices and sometimes even of front-line services. Clearly, under this Government, local authorities have been taking exceptional measures to try to deliver efficiency savings and maintain front-line services. What my hon. Friend describes provides a very good example of how, with the new police and crime commissioners, we might find a greater impetus, and indeed a political impetus from elected commissioners, to try to make those savings happen.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Given that we have received news of an actual cut in planned capital investment and a virtual strangling at birth of the Heseltine proposals, may we have a debate on the Government’s plans to stimulate jobs and growth in economies such as those in Birmingham and the west midlands?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman and I listened to the same statements yesterday and today. What I heard, including today, was an announcement of £2 billion a year going into the single pot to support local enterprise partnerships across the country, and that will accumulate into a substantial sum of money. This is a devolution of resources that never happened under the Government the hon. Gentleman supported. Additionally, if I heard it correctly, £500 million extra is going into the regional growth fund, and we have all seen how that has made a big difference to projects. I am afraid that I do not recognise his premise; we are supporting manufacturing and growth across the regions.

Business of the House

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know he will have sympathy with other colleagues who have historic cities in a countryside setting in their constituency. That was precisely the description applied to Cambridge when its structure plan was agreed some 10 years ago. The essence of the Government’s localism policy is to give more opportunities for local communities to establish the framework for local planning and development. The Government have given that power to York city council, which is not under the control of our party, and I hope that my hon. Friend is successful in ensuring that it listens to the views of the people he represents.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Following the statement yesterday on the hospital and Care Quality Commission scandal, is it not time that we had a full debate, in Government time, on the purpose, intention and scope of the Data Protection Act 1998, so that Parliament is able to make its position crystal clear and stop lawyers’ organisations and petty officials using the Act to hide information, to protect wrongdoers, and to cover up their own incompetence, as seems to happen all too regularly at present?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman a debate at this moment. I heard the Information Commissioner talking about this on the radio this morning. One of the most important things is for there to be clarity in the minds of those in organisations, and those who advise them, on what the 1998 Act requires and what it does not require. As the hon. Gentleman may have heard in the exchanges after the statement yesterday, there are clear exemptions under the Act relating to the public interest.