Christmas Adjournment

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

There is quite a lot to respond to, and I hope to be able to touch on most of the points that have been raised. I shall certainly respond to those Members who are still in their place. I was perhaps hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) would not reappear, because the duration of my speech would have been halved if I had not needed to respond to all the points that he raised. He has returned to his place, however, so I shall respond to him for starters.

My hon. Friend raised concerns about certain House matters, including Tuesday sittings, Prime Minister’s questions and the fact that the Press Gallery was always empty. Those are things that the House can discuss, and Members will be able to tell us whether they are happy with the Tuesday sittings and whether they are content to keep Prime Minister’s questions as a half-hour slot on a Wednesday, rather than reverting to the two 15-minute slots on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

My hon. Friend also expressed concern that there were too many quangos, but I hope he welcomes the fact that the coalition Government have got rid of a substantial number of them. He asked about the Chilcot inquiry. If he is familiar with its website, he will be able to look at the latest exchange of correspondence on that matter and to see where we are at. Obviously, we want the inquiry to publish its findings, and we should not try to pre-empt their content.

My hon. Friend also expressed concern about some aspects of freedom of information. He then went on to talk about air pollution, describing it as a hidden killer. I agree with him on that. The fact that people do not visibly drop dead from air pollution means that it is not treated with the same seriousness as heart attacks and strokes. He was right to say that its principal source, apart from industry, is the tailpipes of the cars and other vehicles that we all drive around in. The Government take the issue seriously and we are working towards the legally binding pollution limits set out in European Union legislation. My hon. Friend also rightly highlighted the importance of alternative fuels, such as liquefied petroleum gas, and the fact that they can make a big difference to air quality. He went on to touch on the issue of fire safety.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

I will give way when I have finished this point. Again, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we all learn lessons from fire incidents and that best practice is spread effectively. On that point, I give way to someone who knows an awful lot about these matters.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I was going to pick up the point on pollution. European regulations require air quality to be up to a certain mark, but London is failing on so many counts that we have a five-year derogation. If fines are levelled against the UK, will they have to be paid for by the UK Government or the Mayor of London?

[Tom Brake]

I wish I had not given way, because I do not know the answer to that question. However, I am sure that we can secure a written response for the hon. Gentleman, who has highlighted the fact that we have significant air quality issues to address in London. The Mayor does need to tackle them firmly. I know that he has launched certain initiatives, but the impact of vehicles is significant and we need to examine wider measures to try to tackle the problem.

My hon. Friend then discussed the Disclosure and Barring Service, which was previously the Criminal Records Bureau. I suspect that many hon. Members will have encountered issues with the CRB and the DBS relating to turnaround times. Often it is not clear where the delays are occurring, because sometimes they are in securing a response from the police. He touched on the issue of school governors, and I think we can all agree that they play an essential role and make a substantial contribution. I suspect that many hon. Members will have been, or may still be, a school governor. As he stated, they need specific skills, and he identified finance as an area where we perhaps need more people coming in. I encourage them to do so.

My hon. Friend touched on the issue of blue badges. He, like me, and I am sure other hon. Members, has experienced some issues relating to the changes that have taken place with that service. I am sure he represents very effectively his constituents who are experiencing difficulties because they were in receipt of a badge but now are finding that it is not available to them.

My hon. Friend mentioned hepatitis. The Department of Health recognises the public health importance of tackling viral hepatitis in England; it imposes a significant burden on the NHS, so he was right to highlight the importance of tackling it. He referred to the South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, which provides mental health services, expressing some concerns about that. Clearly I am not going to refer to any individual cases, but I hope that one thing he would take as a positive step forward is the fact that the Government and the Minister who leads on these issues have been strong in pushing for parity of esteem; in other words, people with mental health issues should be treated in exactly the same way as we would expect people who need to go through the acute health service to be treated. They should get identical quality of care and should see pathways that operate just as effectively.

My hon. Friend also touched on the exotic pet trade, which is a serious contributory factor to the threat of extinction faced by many endangered species. The UK Border Force is responsible for dealing with that, and we need to ensure that anyone dealing in that particular trade follows the rules and completes the right paperwork to ensure that everything is above board.

My hon. Friend mentioned Ray Woodcock, a great granddad who has just broken a Guinness world record, jumping 384 feet down into a flooded quarry. I will make sure that the Chief Whips hear of that, because it may have other potential uses for MPs who misspeak in this place.

Finally, my hon. Friend talked about Southend’s city of culture. It brought a smile to my face when he identified Southend as the alternative city of culture. That is something we can all smile about and welcome. I am sure we will follow developments carefully. I thank my hon. Friend for opening the debate. That leaves me a little bit of time to respond to the other contributions.

The first point that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) raised was about Afsana, a constituent of his who is stranded in Dubai. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has had the support that he needed from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the consular staff, although I understand perfectly why the family will feel that that is not sufficient, given the very serious predicament that their family member is in. I am pleased to hear that a meeting with the Minister has already been agreed, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will pursue the matter as assiduously in that meeting as he has done previously. I am sure that the FCO and consular staff will do everything in their power to help resolve the problem, although all of us who have had experiences of constituents abroad dealing with other legal systems know that that is one of the biggest challenges any Member of Parliament can face in taking up issues on behalf of constituents.

The hon. Gentleman touched on the issue of firefighters’ pensions. He obviously has extensive knowledge of that, which he brings in a very positive way to the Chamber this afternoon. He highlighted some aspects and recognised that it is a good scheme for firefighters. He will know, and I know as a result of a chance meeting with a firefighter while I was out canvassing at the weekend, that the contribution that firefighters make to their pensions is quite significant. The figure that I was quoted was £900 a month as a pension contribution. I am aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), has stated his willingness to engage with the Fire Brigades Union, and I hope that will be pursued, as it is not in the interest of the FBU, the Government or the wider public for strike action to go ahead. If there is a possibility of the talks finding a resolution, let us pursue that option.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) is in his place. I wish him every success in seeking out that plum role in panto. That was everyone’s cue for “Oh no, you don’t”, but they were too slow. My right hon. Friend referred to HS2 and the third runway. It is clear that, particularly in relation to HS2, there will be many opportunities to discuss that further in the months and years to come.

My right hon. Friend dwelt at some length on his interests. From the trip that we both undertook to Venezuela and Brazil some year ago, I know about his interest in environmental matters, wildlife and especially bird life. I recommend that he does not walk around Clapham common in the dark with his bat detection material. He may want to choose another location. He spoke about the Democratic Republic of the Congo and concerns there about its wildlife park. I agree that that is a significant issue, but the DRC has a much wider range of issues that we need to contribute towards resolving, as well as that concern. My right hon. Friend raised the issue of upland habitats here. He may have the opportunity at DEFRA questions on 9 January to raise that and other environment-related matters that he referred to.

There are a couple of issues that I will draw to the attention of the Ministry of Justice—vicarious liability and the changes to legal aid, which my right hon. Friend flagged up. He finished by thanking both the Metropolitan police and the staff of the House, and I join him in that. We all know as Members of Parliament that unfortunately the activities of a very small number of people tend to rub off on the activities of others who have no involvement in inappropriate activities.

The hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) raised the serious issue of eating disorders. It is something the Government take very seriously, particularly among young people. We know that those most affected are young people between the ages of 14 and 25, and there might be as many as 1.1 million people—a substantial number—in the UK directly affected. Since April the relevant services have been commissioned by NHS England, so Members who represent English constituencies should raise concerns on the matter with it.

The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who is no longer in his place, raised a large number of issues. He wanted us to remember 3 Mercian, which we will do. He referred to the role of the trust special administrator at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. I think that he was pleased with some of the outcomes of the process but had concerns about others. I echo those concerns in relation to my local hospital, St Helier. It is a category 6 hospital, so one of the safest in the country, and the best in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for dealing with hip fractures, yet it is proposed, as a result of a clinician review, that its A and E and maternity departments should close, which I will fight very hard.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other health-related issues, which he might want to raise in health questions on 14 January. He also touched on HS2. Given that today we had Transport questions, in which HS2 featured prominently, followed by a statement from the Chair of the Transport Committee, I do not think that there is anything further that I could add. Finally, I was pleased to hear him speaking up for the Government’s position on international development. Following the actions of the previous Government, we are ensuring that we deliver 0.7% of GNI for international development. That gives us credibility around the world when we are talking about the subject. We are recognised internationally for that.

Like other Members, I winced and shuffled in my seat when the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) described the painful process of hysteroscopy. I hope that she, on behalf of us all, will thank her constituent and the other women for providing that information. I think that we need a considered response from the Department of Health. Perhaps more guidance could be issued, whether for patients or doctors, because clearly she has identified a pattern with that procedure and I think that it needs a detailed response.

The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) talked about beds in sheds. Members will know that the Prime Minister has visited Southall to look at that issue. We heard other contributions this afternoon on the private rented sector. It was clear from the cross-party consensus that emerged that something needs to be done. I am sure that the Backbench Business Committee would respond positively to a cross-party request to discuss those issues, because clearly it is unacceptable that people are living in sheds. It was noted that in Slough there were just over 6,100 houses where people were potentially living in sheds, although I suspect that some of them were cannabis farms, because of the heat generated. He also highlighted the number of fires that had happened over a three-year period—just under 350, with nine associated deaths. This not only has a very negative impact on the people who are having to live in those conditions; sometimes the consequences are significantly more serious.

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has yet responded to the housing Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who has written to him to say that he would be happy to meet him to discuss his concerns. He set out in his speech some possible solutions that I am sure the Minister would want to hear. Other Members made some important points that I am sure the Department for Communities and Local Government would appreciate hearing about.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised the issue of the third runway. On behalf of his local community, he has been an articulate and consistant advocate of not building that runway, under the coalition Government and under the previous Government. He also discussed HS2, the Fire Brigades Union dispute, and staffing in the House of Commons. He then talked about safer neighbourhood teams. As a London Member of Parliament, I think that unfortunately the changes that have happened mean that there is less visibility on the streets, and people are raising that in terms of the profile of the police. That is an area that we need to monitor. On the living wage, he highlighted the more positive developments in relation to MITIE and flagged up the actions that John Lewis might like to take in this respect. The Government are very supportive of employers who want to take that route, although one could take the view that some employers might find it difficult to provide the living wage.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) referred to a very difficult case of abuse involving UK and UN personnel that occurred many years ago and did not comply with or satisfy any of the compensation schemes that were available. I can understand why his constituent and he would want closure on the issue. I will certainly draw it to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence in terms of possible solutions.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned an infrastructure proposal regarding the A30 and the A303 and a bid for dualling, although he did not offer it up as an extremely long runway for Heathrow. He then talked about the village of Feniton and his concerns about flooding and the impact of housing development. There may be an opportunity for him to raise those issues as soon as we get back, because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will respond to questions on 9 January and the Department for Communities and Local Government will respond to questions on 13 January.

The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) complained that we were not having a themed debate today. He may or may not be aware that the Backbench Business Committee discussed the matter and felt that today’s debate should be in this format. Perhaps next time it will feel that it should be in the previous format, with themes. Perhaps housing could have been a theme for today’s debate, or fire brigade disputes—who knows what would have been appropriate? We have a Member here who will feed back the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and we will see what decision the Committee makes for future pre-recess Adjournment debates.

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s praise for the contribution that the staff in this place make to the way in which we work. He then dwelled on housing in London, picking up the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. He described the particular challenges faced in a borough like Islington—which I know about reasonably well having lived there some years ago—as regards the cost of housing and the need to build more affordable homes. I am not sure whether the Government would want to follow the hon. Member for Islington North down the route of regulating letting agencies, but he has identified an issue with private landlords that requires a solution. I will make sure that the proposal in his private Member’s Bill is drawn to the attention of the Department for Communities and Local Government to see whether it can provide a solution. Given that we have had substantial contributions on the issue of housing and the private rented sector in particular, the Backbench Business Committee may look favourably on a request for a debate early in the new year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), who has just left his place, thanked organisations in his constituency, including the Salvation Army and church groups. I am sure we would all want to echo those remarks. I will visit my local Salvation Army tomorrow to pick up some gifts for me to give to a family who cannot afford presents this Christmas. The Salvation Army is making a positive contribution at this festive time of year, as are church groups by organising lunches for people who might otherwise be alone.

My hon. Friend also referred to a couple of transport infrastructure projects and I will make sure that the Department for Transport is made aware of those two bids. I do not intend to visit cholesterol corner—it does not sound like a nice place to go—where people can get their arteries blocked in more ways than one: from KFC and McDonald’s to the traffic congestion at the junction.

I believe that I have touched on most or even all of the points that have been raised. In conclusion, I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Clerks, the Door Keepers, the shadow Deputy Leader of the House the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), every Member who has contributed to the debate, and the civil servants who have provided support to ensure that I and others were well briefed, as well as our constituency and Westminster staff. As Members of Parliament we are uniquely privileged in the positions we hold in this House and none of our work would be possible without the contribution that a whole range of people make to our lives.

I will finish with a big smile on my face, just to dispel the notion that I might be auditioning for “Grinch 3”. I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before I put the question, may I thank all the Members who took part in the debate and wish everybody who stayed behind all the best for Christmas and the new year? I also thank all the staff of this House, wherever they work in it, for their efficiency and for making the lives of all Members so much easier. I also thank the public who visit this rare House of ours. Right, let’s put the question!

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

Business without Debate

Tom Brake Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

In the circumstances, I think it appropriate to make a few points. First, this motion will allow us to resolve not to sit in Westminster Hall tomorrow. This follows the decision of the International Development Committee, many of whose members one assumes will want to attend tomorrow’s events in Westminster Hall to commemorate Nelson Mandela, not to proceed with its business, as agreed by the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, who intervened a few minutes ago to confirm that.

The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) made a number of alternative proposals about the timing, for example, although I do not know whether the International Development Committee considered that because I was not party to the discussions. If we do not proceed with this motion, the impact would be that the business would still appear on the Order Paper and a Chair, Clerks and Doorkeepers would need to be on a rota to attend tomorrow’s business even though it was not taking place. On that basis, it seems sensible to ask the House to resolve the matter in order to clarify the position to the public, and for the convenience of everyone else.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has just mentioned the public. Given the importance of the Westminster Hall debates, some members of the public may have made arrangements to come to London specifically to attend them, so we are probably inconveniencing members of the public as well.

[Tom Brake]

My hon. Friend has made a telling point. I cannot disagree with him: some people may indeed have been inconvenienced as a result of this decision. I therefore hope that the alternative dates will be widely publicised to enable them—we hope—to attend the debate in future. I also hope that they will take account of the fact that there was a strong demand for this event, and the fact that, because of the way in which things happened, it was not possible to predict that it would clash with a debate initiated by the International Development Committee that they had wished to attend.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendment of Standing Orders

Tom Brake Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

I rise to speak on behalf of the Government in support of the motion relating to Select Committee statements and to speak to the motion on Back-Bench business moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), to which I will wish to move the amendments standing in my name and that of the Leader of the House. I thank him for opening the debate as he did and for clearly setting out the effect of and the thinking behind his motion and for explaining that his moment has not come as the Tea Room was deathly silent in pledging support for it.

I agree with the first paragraph of the motion on providing the Backbench Business Committee with the formal power to hear representations from Members of the House in public. As my hon. Friend explained, this merely brings Standing Orders into line with the Committee’s existing practice. As a regular attender of its public meetings, I can say that they work very well. It is a real advance in this House for Back-Bench Members to be able to bid directly and openly for time to debate subjects of their choosing.

Turning to the rest of the motion, the House will be aware from the Backbench Business Committee’s evidence to the Procedure Committee and the Government’s response to that Committee’s report that we both oppose the proposals for a pro-rata increase in the number of days allocated to the Backbench Business Committee in a parliamentary Session lasting longer than a calendar year and for the Committee to have the power to table business motions. We have tabled amendments to remove these provisions, in support of the Committee’s stated views.

I listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the Chair of the Procedure Committee. While I understand the rationale behind the proposals, I do not believe that either is necessary. The first arose partly as a result of the unusually long first Session of this Parliament. We have now passed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which ties us, other than in exceptional circumstances, to five-year Parliaments with an election in early May. As a result, a spring-to-spring one-year Session should be the norm, and I do not expect a repeat of the two year Session. If there is one—one can never rule it out—or if a Session extends slightly beyond one year, I assure the House that business managers will take account of the interests of the Backbench Business Committee and the House to ensure a balanced spread of business.

In fact, that is what happened during that long first Session. The Government did not seek to stick to the Standing Order requirement of 35 days, but allocated the Backbench Business Committee 58 days, which was—contrary to the point made by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone)—well above what a simple pro rata increase would have delivered. Members may recall that it took several weeks at the start of the Session for the Backbench Business Committee to become established, during which time the Government provided time for debates that would otherwise have come from their allocation. That demonstrates, as the Chair of the Committee has said, that an element of flexibility is helpful to the House in the unlikely event of future long Sessions.

I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne will be able to accept those arguments and the Government amendment. Indeed, he has indicated as much. Should it come to a vote—although I understand that that will not be the case—I hope the House will support our position and that of the Backbench Business Committee and vote in favour of amendment (a), to leave out paragraph (2) of the motion.

On amendment (b) and business motions, I understand the case made by my hon. Friend but, again, the Government do not believe it is necessary to provide the Backbench Business Committee with the power to table business motions governing Back-Bench business days. There is already flexibility for the Committee to indicate on the Order Paper the amount of time it expects each debate to take. In these circumstances, as the Committee Chair has said, Members are generally very good at exercising restraint when necessary and respecting the interests of others wishing to speak in subsequent debates. The occupant of the Speaker’s Chair is also able to encourage Members to lengthen or shorten their speeches or even to impose formal time limits, having regard to the interest shown by Members in contributing to debates. That arrangement has worked very well. It provides maximum discretion for the Backbench Business Committee to organise the business as it sees fit and avoids the rigidity of a business motion.

The House may recall that there have been occasions nearer the start of the Parliament when the Government have provided a business motion at the request of the Procedure Committee and the Backbench Business Committee. It is also true that this Government have never refused a request for a business motion from either Committee. Furthermore, I can assure the House that we will continue to respond positively to similar requests from both Committees in the future.

[Mr Jenkin]

Has not my right hon. Friend defeated his own argument? If that is always going to be the case, why not let the Backbench Business Committee table the motions itself instead of having to ask his permission? Why does the Backbench Business Committee need to ask the Government’s permission for a business motion?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has heard from the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee why she is not seeking that power. The risk is that if it were available, Members would start to exercise it, which would do away with the flexibility she has said is such an advantage to the Committee.

The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee has already said in evidence to the inquiry that she does not think the power is necessary and she cannot see the problem. I agree with her. Again, I hope that, given my assurances and the views of the Committee Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne will accept the Government’s amendment—for the moment at least—until things move further and more quickly in the direction he seeks.

I will now turn to Select Committee launches and the motion standing in my name and those of the Leader of the House and the Chairs of the Liaison and the Backbench Business Committees. The motion provides for a new Standing Order governing the procedure relating to Select Committee statements. The Procedure Committee, in its second report of Session 2012-13, supported a new Standing Order for that purpose, an idea proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip when he was Leader of the House. I am sure he will be pleased that his good ideas continue to come to fruition.

Before briefly describing the effect of the motion, I would like to add that it has been tabled on the basis of much negotiation and discussion. I am grateful to the Chairs of the Liaison and the Backbench Business Committees for adding their names to the motion, signifying the degree of consensus achieved on it.

The Government agree that the present procedure, under which Members may contribute to the short debate by way of intervention only, is rather cumbersome. The launch of a Select Committee inquiry or report is more akin to a ministerial statement than a debate. It therefore makes sense for Members to be able to ask questions of the Member making the statement, rather than by seeking to intervene during a single speech. That will prove a more natural and convenient way of proceeding.

The proposed new Standing Order gives the Backbench Business Committee full discretion in allocating a specified amount of time to Select Committee statements, which can be set down on any of its allocated days. The Liaison Committee will enjoy a similar discretion in respect of its allocated days in Westminster Hall.

I want to respond to two points made by the hon. Member for Kettering. First, I want to reassure him that paragraph (1)(a) assumes that an application has been made by a Select Committee to the Backbench Business Committee for a statement, so the Backbench Business Committee cannot require one. I hope that he is reassured that the Backbench Business Committee will not force Select Committees to make statements that they do not intend to make.

Secondly, Select Committee launches can last any period determined by the Backbench Business Committee or the Liaison Committee, but they are not obliged to specify a time, and if they do not do so, the launch would be open-ended, and there would not be the constraining mechanism about which the hon. Gentleman expressed concern.

It is important that the House remains able to respond rapidly to new developments so as to be at the centre of political debate. That is why I believe that any Select Committee statements should be made no later than five sitting days after the day on which the report is published or inquiry announced, as provided in the Standing Order. I encourage Select Committees, wherever possible, to continue the current practice of launching reports on the day of publication.

The Select Committee statement provides Select Committees with an excellent opportunity to publicise their work either by launching their inquiries—that practice has found favour in the Scottish Parliament, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House found when he visited—or by explaining the contents of their reports to the House.

So far, 13 Committees have made a total of 14 statements. Committees now have the chance to ensure that their work becomes a staple feature of Back-Bench business, although they will have to compete with many other demands for time. No doubt Committees will wish to review how the new arrangements work in due course.

I hope that the House will find that the new Standing Order provides an improved procedure for this innovation. I welcome the support of the deputy shadow Leader of the House and that of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee on a common position with the Government on these issues this evening. I hope that the House will support that motion when I move it.

[Mr Walker]

This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I have learned a lot of procedure during its course, and it is good to know that, no matter how inexperienced we are, we can always become more experienced by listening to the wisdom of colleagues. If this is possible and acceptable to the House, I would ask to withdraw the motion on Back-Bench business—I understand that that is acceptable to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee—while of course leaving the motion on Select Committee statements alone. I have nothing further to add, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Amendments to Bills (Explanatory Statements)

Tom Brake Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

The Government support the motion. I thank the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), for his thoughtful and charmingly concise opening comments, and for explaining to the House the reasoning and conclusions of his Committee. I will set out a little of the history that has led to this debate, although I am a little disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) did not do so. I will then explain why the House should support the motion and reject the amendment.

The report to which the motion refers was published by the Procedure Committee on 25 February 2013 and the motion appeared on the Order Paper before the summer recess, but consideration of this issue can be traced back to Modernisation Committee report in 2006 recommending that the Procedure Committee draw up a set of rules governing the tabling and publishing of explanatory statements on amendments to Bills on an optional basis during Committee stage. That followed evidence from the team on the Health Bill that was introduced in 2005, which said that such statements would help to ensure that

“when we are briefing our ministers and advising them how to respond, the issues the Member really wants debated are covered and we really are responding to the queries or concerns that are being raised.”

It is of assistance to Ministers, Members and the public if there is clarity about amendments, if debates are informed and if scrutiny is as effective as it can be.

Following the report, several pilots were conducted. Although the Procedure Committee concluded that explanatory statements were useful, take-up of the facility was disappointing. The overall assessment of the value of explanatory statements was inconclusive.

Following discussions in this Parliament between the Procedure Committee and the Leader of the House, it was decided that a further pilot should take place on two Bills, the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill and the Small Charitable Donations Bill. Criteria for evaluating the pilot were agreed and the Public Bill Office was tasked with preparing a memorandum evaluating the pilot. That was published as part of the Procedure Committee’s report, so I will not attempt to summarise it. The memorandum led the Procedure Committee to recommend a system of voluntary explanatory statements for all Bills at the Committee and Report stages. The Procedure Committee concluded:

“The evidence from the pilot suggests that there are few downsides to a permissive approach.”

I agree with that.

The amendment asks the House to resolve

“that explanatory statements on amendments be mandatory”.

After a playful intervention by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who moved the amendment, said that he was smirking in an irritating way. I know the hon. Gentleman well and he does not smirk in an irritating way. I would describe it more as an impish smirk. I accept that there is sense behind the amendment, particularly given the argument that it is easier to instil a cultural shift by making something mandatory and that a failing of previous pilots was the low take-up of the facility. However, I hope that I will be able to persuade supporters of the amendment not to press it to a vote, but to join those of us who want explanatory statements to become

“an accepted norm of the legislative process.”

The publication of explanatory statements will not guarantee that a Member understands the Bill. A Member who looks at the explanatory statements in isolation and does not have an understanding of the Bill will not be guaranteed to understand the amendments. If explanatory statements are published, it will require Members to read them to understand their implication. As the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) said, according to a statistic he has, seven out of 10 Members apparently vote without knowing what they are voting on. I am therefore not sure I have full confidence that if explanatory statements were put on a mandatory basis, each and every Member would read them and be fully informed about the purpose of the Bill.

There are good reasons to argue for a permissive approach, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for his support in that respect. The Procedure Committee argues that a mandatory requirement would restrict Opposition Back Benchers in tabling amendments. I am afraid I have to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—a gamekeeper turned poacher in this respect. He referred to Short money being available to the official Opposition. That is true, but he will remember that when we were in opposition, even with Short money, there was difficulty dealing with the volume of amendments. I am sure he will also acknowledge we are now in a coalition Government, and Short money is not available to the coalition partners. In fact, in many cases when one of the parties seeks to table an amendment, there is no support for that at all. I must therefore disagree with my hon. Friend, as I do with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who must acknowledge that simply producing explanatory notes is no guarantee that a Member of Parliament will read them—although clearly I hope that that would be the case.

It is accepted, I think, that the burden would fall heavily on Her Majesty’s official Opposition, who table a significant proportion of amendments. It is always best to proceed in this area of parliamentary reform on the basis of consensus. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, and others who support the amendment, do not want to proceed on the basis of consensus. Of all Members in this House I would have thought the hon. Lady favoured the idea of proceeding on that basis.

Should the House decide to go down the mandatory route in future, it would be free to do so, but it should be on the basis of a fuller consideration of the burden— perhaps with a further pilot on a mandatory basis—and full consideration of some issues not fully addressed in the report. Those could include, for example, whether an amendment would be refused for tabling by the Public Bill Office if it were not accompanied by an explanatory statement, or if that statement was felt to be in some way disorderly—that could certainly put the Public Bill Office in a difficult position. If explanatory statements were made mandatory, more thought would need to be given to what constitutes adequacy and accuracy in explanatory statements, and who would rule on such issues. Those issues could be considered by the House in the future, but it should not be left to the Chair to consider and rule on such procedural reforms in the way proposed by the amendment to today’s motion.

I am grateful to those in the Public Bill Office, in particular the Clerk of Legislation, for the assessment of the pilot, and for confirmation that they would be happy to consider further the issues we have discussed today if that is felt necessary. I am extremely grateful for the positive commitment they have made to assist all Members in preparing explanatory statements—the hon. Member for Broxbourne referred to the fact that he could hear them champing at the bit, and if we listen carefully I think we can hear them champing right now to assist Members in preparing explanatory statements. That commitment is noted in the motion before the House and will help encourage the facility to become part of the culture of the House.

As with the pilots, I expect Government Departments to play their role and actively participate in the new arrangements. Should the House agree the motion tonight, I expect the Government to table explanatory statements on amendments for Bills introduced to this House after 1 January 2014. The Cabinet Office will produce guidance for Departments on the issue, and I am happy to commit to deposit that in the Libraries of the House for the convenience of all Members.

I am sure Her Majesty’s official Opposition, with the assistance of the House authorities, will also up their game from the pilots. As the Procedure Committee said, a more widespread use of explanatory statements “should underline their utility”. I thank the Procedure Committee for its work on this issue. I urge colleagues not to press the amendment to a vote and for us to push forward on a consensual basis, and I commend the motion to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Business of the House

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is sorry to be absent again this week. He is recovering well at home following his back operation last week, and is confident that he will be in his place and carrying out his duties in the House next week.

The business for next week will be as follows.

Monday 28 October—I expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to update the House following the European Council. That will be followed by the Second Reading of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords], which will be followed by a motion to approve an instruction relating to the Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 29 October—Remaining stages of the Pensions Bill, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to reform of Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, followed by a motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill.

Wednesday 30 October—Opposition Day (9th allotted day). There will be a debate on education, followed by a debate on the future of the probation service. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.

Thursday 31 October—Remaining stages of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill.

Friday 1 November—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 4 November will include the following.

Monday 4 November—Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.

Tuesday 5 November—Second Reading of the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Wednesday 6 November—Opposition Day (10th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion; subject to be announced.

Thursday 7 November—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee, followed by a general debate relating to the commemoration of the first world war.

Friday 8 November—Private Members’ Bills.

Colleagues will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will adjourn on the following dates during 2014.

The House will rise for the February recess at close of play on Thursday 13 February, and will return on Monday 24 February.



The House will rise for the Easter recess at close of play on Thursday 10 April, and will return on Monday 28 April.

The House will not sit on Monday 5 May.

The House will rise for the Whitsun recess on Thursday 22 May, and will return on Monday 2 June.

The House will rise for the summer recess on Tuesday 22 July, and will return on Monday 1 September.

The House will rise for the conference recess on Friday 12 September, subject to its agreeing future sitting dates for private Members’ Bills, and will return on Monday 13 October.

The House will rise for the November recess on Tuesday 11 November, and will return on Monday 17 November.

The House will rise for the Christmas recess on Thursday 18 December, and return on Monday 5 November 2015. [Laughter.] I mean Monday 5 January 2015.

[Ms Eagle]

I thought for a minute there that time had reversed and was going backwards, but the Deputy Leader of the House has put us straight. May I again pass on my best wishes for the speedy recovery of the Leader of the House? We hope to see him back in his place next week—no discourtesy is intended to the Deputy Leader of the House, who has filled in entirely, as we would have expected him to, with great aplomb.

May I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for giving us next week’s business and also next year’s recess dates, especially around the conference recess? I understand why the Scottish referendum has disrupted the usual arrangements but it does seem a bit strange that we have had to make changes to accommodate the 2014 Liberal Democrats conference. At the rate they are losing members, next year they could hold it in a telephone box over the weekend.

This business statement once again shows we are kicking our legislative heels in the Commons while the other place is yet again stuffed full of legislation. The Government still have to find time for us to discuss the Offender Rehabilitation Bill even though it completed its Lords stages months ago. It has now taken Labour to announce an Opposition day debate for the Government’s underhand privatisation of the probation service to be discussed at all. This is now the third time I have had to ask: can the Deputy Leader of the House confirm when this Bill will return to the Commons?

The Chancellor’s inadequate Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill has been substantially changed by last-minute amendments in the Lords, making it a very different and much longer Bill from the one we debated here originally. Given the importance of banking regulation to everybody’s living standards, will the Deputy Leader of the House now give us an assurance that sufficient time will be allocated to debate what will be essentially a very different piece of legislation when it finally returns to this place?

In the last two weeks, three of the big six energy firms have announced price rises of around 10%. To stand up to this abuse of market power, Labour will freeze prices until 2017, but the Government’s energy policy is in chaos. In opposition, the Prime Minister hugged huskies and pretended to be green, and only last year he was boasting that his green levies were bigger than ours, but last week his Back-Bench climate change deniers were agitating to abolish them, reducing bills by hitting the poorest hardest and abandoning energy efficiency altogether, and yesterday, in a blind panic, the Prime Minister announced that he had given in to them. The Deputy Prime Minister looked like he had swallowed a wasp, and Lib Dem spinners dismissed it as a “panicky U-turn” which will not be allowed to “dictate Government policy.” So I think we now know what the new Tory policy is, but can the Deputy Leader of the House tell us what the Government’s policy is?

Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister said we were living in

“some sort of Marxist universe” —[Official Report, 9 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 152.]

for suggesting a 20-month energy price freeze, and he said it was not possible to intervene in a market to set prices. This week, his Government signed a nuclear deal with the Chinese which sets prices not for 20 months, but for 35 years. On Tuesday Sir John Major announced his conversion to a windfall energy tax and worried about the silent have-nots who have to choose between heating and eating this winter. Meanwhile, No. 10’s advice to those who are cold was to wear a jumper. It speaks volumes when the Tory ex-Prime Minister responsible for the creation of the big six energy companies sounds more in touch than the current Prime Minister. So will the Deputy Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement to clarify Government policy on energy, and can we have a statement from the Prime Minister on whether he thinks Sir John Major is living in a Marxist universe too?

The Conservative party in the 1992 Parliament is remembered for being one of the most disloyal in its history, but I have been looking at the numbers and it turns out that the current crop of Government MPs are three times worse than they were then, and I think the Patronage Secretary’s expression says it all, because he has to deal with them. It sounds like the Prime Minister needs to listen to his predecessor not only on energy prices, but also on how to control his rebellious Back Benchers. While Sir John told them to put up or shut up, the current Prime Minister just caves in.

We know that for 39 out of the 40 months since the election prices have grown faster than wages. Will the Deputy Leader of the House now admit what we all know: that it was the Chancellor’s city bonus tax dodge that accounted for the surge in earnings in that one isolated month? So while living standards are falling bonuses are soaring, and the Chancellor creates a bonus tax loophole for his mates. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange for a statement from the Chancellor about why he prioritises his millionaire friends over tackling our cost of living crisis?

Last week, I asked the Deputy Leader of the House why he is campaigning against the closure of his local hospital, despite being in the Government responsible for it. Today, the Deputy Prime Minister will criticise the free schools policy, despite being in the Government responsible for it. I know that it was the final of “The Great British Bake Off” this week, but when will the Liberal Democrats realise that they cannot have their cake and eat it?

[Tom Brake]

Last week, the shadow Leader of the House asked what I am thinking when I am sitting alongside the Leader of the House. I must ask her today what the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) might be thinking as she sits alongside the shadow Leader of the House—she may be wondering whether it is vanity that has prevented the shadow Leader of the House from letting the hon. Lady who shadows me speak in questions, or perhaps the shadow Leader of the House was worried that her hon. Friend might outshine her at the Dispatch Box.

I am pleased that the shadow Leader of the House referred to the 2014 Liberal Democrat conference. I recommend that she attends, because I am sure that she would welcome the very open policy debates we have. She alleged that the Government were kicking their heels on legislation. As I read out, we are to debate pensions, high-speed rail and national insurance contributions—if she thinks those are minor issues, she needs to think again. She referred to the Offender Rehabilitation Bill and of course there will be an opportunity for it to be debated on the Opposition day she has provided. I reassure her that the Bill will be brought forward as soon as possible: as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The shadow Leader of the House referred again to Labour’s price freeze con. We all know that bills would go up before it, that the Leader of the Opposition has said that he could not guarantee things during the freeze if global prices went up and that the prices would go up afterwards. So we all know where that would lead. We had the nuclear statement at the beginning of the week, and I hope that she would have welcomed the fact that, finally, we are getting some investment in our energy industry. She may not be aware that over the next 10 to 15 years about 60% of our energy generation is going to be switched off as plants come to their end, so there was a need for the Government to take urgent action to address that. I would have thought that she would have welcomed that action.

Clearly we want to help families with the cost of living. The Government have introduced a number of measures that will do that: 25 million basic rate taxpayers are going to be £700 better off next year; we have capped rail fare rises; 3 million people will be taken out of paying income tax altogether; we stopped the 13p fuel duty rise that would have occurred under Labour; and we have capped the council tax. So this Government have a very proud record of tackling cost of living issues.

Finally, I would like to thank the shadow Leader of the House for again giving me the chance to mention at the Dispatch Box the save St Helier hospital campaign, which I am leading.

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

May we have a debate on making better use of natural resources, particularly daylight? Is the Deputy Leader of the House aware that this weekend we are to undertake the flawed ritual of putting our clocks back by one hour, thereby plunging the UK into darkness by mid-afternoon? May we have the opportunity to examine the case for changing to British summer time and double summer time—putting our clocks forward an hour? That would make the afternoons lighter, it would reduce the number of road accidents and it would boost tourism.

[Tom Brake]

Clearly, we are all in favour of making better use of daylight. I know that the House has considered the issue on a number of occasions, and I am well aware of the arguments that my right hon. Friend is putting forward about the benefit that would be derived, particularly for the tourism industry and road safety. He may wish to consider raising the matter in a Westminster Hall Adjournment debate.

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

Would the acting Leader of the House agree that if we had a debate in the Chamber on the orchestrated campaign of intimidation against The Guardian, that would be an opportunity for some of us to point out that if it had not been for the Snowden disclosures, the monitoring of the German Chancellor’s mobile phone by US intelligence would not have been known? Surely the message about Snowden should be, “Let’s have more disclosures.” What The Guardian is publishing is undoubtedly in the national interest.

[Tom Brake]

Clearly, I do not agree that there is an orchestrated campaign against The Guardian. Clearly, there is a need for the issues of public interest that The Guardian wants to highlight to be balanced with the security implications of any material it puts into the public domain.

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

During the summer recess, I met Stuart Wyatt, a constituent who suffers from multiple sclerosis. He told me that he and many others would like to use cannabis for medical reasons. Although I do not think that we should legalise cannabis at all, I do recognise that the pain of some who suffer from MS and other neurological conditions could be relieved by it. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the role of cannabis in relieving pain and how it could be given on prescription?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, which he has put in measured terms. I understand why he has put it on behalf of his constituent. He may be aware of Sativex, a cannabis-derived mouth spray licensed in the UK in 2010 as an additional treatment for moderate to severe spasticity in multiple sclerosis. He may also be aware that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is updating its clinical guideline on the management of MS in primary and secondary care. Sativex is one of the new interventions that NICE has identified for inclusion in its updated guidelines, which it expects to publish in October 2014.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

May I support the call made by the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on energy, so that the Government can clarify whether they are in favour of the warm homes programme, the renewable energy programme, Labour’s cap or John Major’s windfall tax? Those points need to be clarified. May we have that debate?

[Tom Brake]

Obviously, the Labour party has Opposition days that it could use to secure such a debate. Earlier there was a statement about the nuclear industry and in the course of a number of exchanges, including Prime Minister’s questions and Business, Innovation and Skills questions earlier today, we have made clear the Government’s position on energy and why we do not believe that what the Leader of the Opposition proposes is a sensible or feasible approach.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

It is a year since Paul Silk made recommendations for further fiscal devolution to the National Assembly for Wales. Why are we still waiting for the Government’s response to those recommendations? May we have a statement about the Government’s intentions and, better still, legislation?

[Tom Brake]

I know why my hon. Friend is pursuing the matter vigorously; it is clearly of great interest to him and his constituents. The matter is still under discussion in Government. The most sensible thing for me to do is ensure that we write to him setting out the current position.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

On 26 May 2011, the then Health Secretary, whom we wish a speedy recovery, wrote to me about a decision by West Midlands strategic health authority to reduce nurse training. He replied that it believed that

“a reduction in commissions is necessary to avoid a significant oversupply in the nursing workforce.”

Last week it was revealed by Nursing Times that a massive one in three hospitals is going abroad actively to recruit new nurses. May we have an early statement so that the new Health Secretary can override his incompetent bureaucrats and expand nurse training opportunities for our desperate and deserving youngsters?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question, and I will certainly draw the matter to the attention of the Leader of the House when he returns, as he may want to consider it further. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have provided an extra £12.7 billion of investment in the NHS. He may also be aware that 4,000 more clinical staff have gone into the NHS and that there are 23,000 fewer administrative staff. Specifically on the west midlands, however, I will ensure that the Health Secretary responds to him.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Last Saturday presidential elections were once again postponed in the Maldives when President Waheed and his puppet interim Government of the previous elected President refused to step aside. Will the Deputy Leader of the House make time for a debate so that MPs on both sides of the House can voice their support for free and fair elections in that country?

[Tom Brake]

The annulment of the first round of Maldivian elections held on 7 September, and the continued delay in holding new elections, are of concern to the Government and to the Foreign Secretary, as he made clear in a statement last week. It is important that elections take place to a timing specified by the Maldives elections commission and in accordance with the Maldives constitution. Ministers and officials are in touch with candidates and are strongly encouraging them to engage in a process that will deliver inclusive, free and fair elections, and a smooth transition of power. My hon. Friend may be aware that we have Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions on Tuesday when he could raise the matter again.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Britain has an enormous and ongoing trade deficit with the rest of the European Union, including a goods deficit of more than £1 billion a week, mainly with Germany. That is equivalent to 1 million exported jobs. The situation is conclusive evidence of a substantially misaligned exchange rate, so will the Deputy Leader of the House make Government time available for a full debate on the exchange rate?

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid that I cannot provide the hon. Gentleman with an opportunity to discuss that in Government time, but he might want to make representations to his party’s leadership about whether it could be the subject of an Opposition day debate. I know that he has strong views on the European Union, and I wonder whether he feels that coming out of the EU would help or hinder the trade deficit.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

In January 2012, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a wonderful speech about how to reconstruct an inclusive, just and popular capitalism. He called for a new co-operatives Bill, but that has not yet appeared. I cannot imagine that the Liberal Democrats are opposing it, but I cannot think of any other explanation, as the Secretary of State for Education and Cabinet Office Ministers have supported such a Bill. Will the Deputy Leader of the House see to it that time is provided to bring forward that important new Bill on co-operatives?

[Tom Brake]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to raise that issue during today’s Business, Innovation and Skills questions, as that would have been a good opportunity to flag it up. However, I will ensure that he gets a written response to his very specific question.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

My constituents are getting angry and frustrated about the rocketing cost of High Speed 2. At a time when we are expecting winter weather and more flooding, may we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport on what he is doing to ensure that the line between Penzance and London is resilient in the face of floods and can be kept open beyond Exeter?

[Tom Brake]

I assure the hon. Lady that the cost controls around HS2 are very firm. This substantial and important project is going to provide the biggest boost to our rail network since the Victorian era. On the specific issue about her locality, the Government have set aside substantial investment to ensure that other projects around the country are delivered. She may wish to raise the matter at Transport questions on 7 November.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Could time be found for a debate on human rights in Russia, given that tomorrow marks the 10th anniversary of the imprisonment of Amnesty prisoner of conscience Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was imprisoned in a gulag in the Arctic circle for having the temerity to disagree with the President?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Minister for Europe issued a statement marking the 10-year anniversary of Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s arrest and met his son on 10 October to discuss the situation. The Government have significant concerns about the processes used to convict Khodorkovsky and continue to call for him to be released on schedule next August. The promotion and protection of human rights is a key priority in our bilateral relationship with Russia and we regularly raise it at all levels.

It may be appropriate to add that, since I announced the business statement, I have been informed of further business. On Thursday 31 October, there will be a debate in Westminster Hall on the oversight of the intelligence and security services.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary is very good at updating the House about the situation in the middle east. Yesterday, 300 al-Qaeda-affiliated prisoners organised an attempted break-out from the main prison in Sana’a in Yemen. When can we have a statement on what assistance we are giving to the Yemeni Government?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that pertinent and timely question. I cannot guarantee that there will be time for a debate or a statement, but I will ensure that the Foreign Secretary hears his concerns and responds directly to him. He will also have an opportunity to raise the issue directly with the Foreign Secretary during Question Time next Tuesday.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

May we have a debate on charging by general practitioners? Vulnerable people in my constituency are being charged up to £130 by their GPs to provide medical information that is needed for Atos assessments. That is money they can sorely afford to spend and this important issue is affecting some of the most vulnerable in society, so may we please debate it?

[Tom Brake]

Clearly that is a significant issue that I am sure presents a real financial challenge to some people. I would like to think that GPs would be careful about levying such charges when it is clear that the person might not be able to afford them.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

May I challenge the Deputy Leader of the House to come back to the House some time in the near future and explain exactly how the Government are devising policy? Yesterday’s announcement by the Prime Minister on green measures and fuel prices caught everyone unawares. Today the Deputy Minister is making a speech about education and suggesting that we should regulate with regard to qualified teachers in our schools, but only last week the Minister for Schools signed off on cuts that could deregulate the oversight of qualified teachers. The Government’s approach, and not least that of the Liberal Democrats, seems to be inconsistent, so could we have an explanation of exactly what is going on?

[Tom Brake]

I will give the hon. Gentleman an explanation immediately. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that parents want and expect their children to be taught a core body of knowledge by good, qualified teachers or teachers seeking qualification—the quality of their teaching is checked by Ofsted—and to get a healthy meal every day. The Government believe that every child should have access to a good choice of excellent local schools. The hon. Gentleman may know that three quarters of free schools provide good or outstanding education, compared with just 64% in the public sector.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

I recently met my constituent Angela Lavelle, who suffered from breast cancer. She told me how chemotherapy affects eyesight, leading to a greater risk of cataracts, and the teeth, leading to problems of rapid decay, which results in the need for more frequent check-ups. Unless patients are in receipt of benefits or on a low income, they have to meet those extra costs. May we have a debate to discuss what help we can give these cancer sufferers?

[Tom Brake]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman and everyone in the House will welcome the extra funding the Government have put into cancer treatment. I will ensure that the Health Secretary responds to him on the specific issue of the extra costs that his constituent has to meet.

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

On energy prices, may we have a debate or a statement in which we may raise the concerns of households that are off the gas grid and heavily dependant on home heating oil? That is a particular problem in rural areas and regions such as Northern Ireland, where 70% of households are dependent on home heating oil. The costs are extremely high and people are suffering in fuel poverty. Such a debate or statement would allow us to explore the help that is available for those households.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for highlighting the significant issue of the additional fuel costs that are faced by those who are off the grid. Although I cannot assure him that there will be an opportunity to debate the matter, I will ensure that what he has said is passed on to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change so that my right hon. Friend can set out how we are helping those who are in the most difficult financial position of all.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May we have a debate on reforming the Official Secrets Act? Breaches of the Act over the past decade in the Royal Navy and the Secret Intelligence Service have attracted only light custodial sentences. Is it not about time the Act was reformed to ensure that there is sufficient deterrent against treason in this country?

[Tom Brake]

I am not aware of any opportunities that there will be to raise that matter shortly, but the hon. Gentleman could apply for an Adjournment debate on the subject. If he feels that there is cross-party concern about the issue, he could also seek a debate from the Backbench Business Committee.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

May we have a comprehensive statement to the House about the health service in Shropshire? There is a debate about A and E services between Telford and Shrewsbury, which nobody in the county wants, and there is an emerging crisis in the ambulance service, particularly with regard to response times. May we have a comprehensive statement from the Government about those health services, because they are very important to people in Shropshire and particularly to those in Telford and Wrekin?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight his concerns about his local health service. He mentioned A and E and the ambulance service, and I am sure that he will welcome the fact that the Government are investing £250 million in each of the next two years to support those A and E departments that are under the most pressure. He may also welcome the fact that, for the first time, the Government have put in place measures to examine waiting times. I will ensure that a response is sent to him about the specific issues that he has raised about the health service in Shropshire.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

Last week, when I gently asked the Deputy Leader of the House about the forthcoming announcement on nuclear, he said that I would have to wait for the announcement. The announcement has now been made, so I will ask my question again. Bridgwater college is training the top engineers who will be needed to fulfil our promises not only, as somebody put it, to the Chinese and the French, but to the United Kingdom. Sedgemoor district council in my constituency must have a major part of the inward investment that the country needs to ensure that the supply chain for this enormous project is fulfilled. May we have time to discuss training, skills and inward investment for the United Kingdom in relation to the biggest infrastructure project that we have seen for a generation?

[Tom Brake]

The UK is determined to become a low-carbon economy, which is why our energy policy requires a mix of renewable, clean coal, gas and nuclear energy. As a result of the announcement on Monday, I am sure that the Government will want to work with employers and training providers to ensure that UK plc derives the maximum possible benefit. We believe that the nuclear industry is cost-competitive with other generation technologies. However, as the hon. Gentleman identified, we must ensure that we derive the maximum benefit from the project so that we can use those skills as the industry develops around the world.

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

On 18 April, I raised the issue of a fake internet jobs scam that was exposed by BBC Radio Humberside. Today, Radio Humberside has reported on another racket in which jobseekers are tricked into calling an expensive 070 phone number and completing a long questionnaire for a fake company called SB Millers, which is run by Sean Dixon of 33 Epsom road in London. Please may we have a debate on how we can stop these rackets that exploit desperate people who are looking for work and prosecute the criminals behind them?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Lady rightly highlights that problem in the Chamber today and I hope that it will receive publicity to ensure that people are more widely aware of that scam. I am sure that she has raised the matter with her local trading standards officers to see what action they can take. Thanks to her, we are all aware of the potential problem, and I am sure we will all want to keep an eye out to ensure that our constituents are not affected in the way that hers have been.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

There has been an outrageous slur from the Opposition that Liberal Democrat Ministers are not supporting the Prime Minister. If we closed our eyes today, we could hear the Deputy Leader of the House sounding exactly like a Tory Minister. Just to ensure that there is no doubt, will he arrange for the Deputy Prime Minister to make a statement next week that he fully supports the Prime Minister’s desire to roll back green energy regulations?

[Tom Brake]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to listen to the Deputy Prime Minister on LBC, but he might have found clarification on that point. Perhaps Mrs Bone had an opportunity to listen to that interview and will be able to report back to him. The coalition Government have made it clear that we are committed to being the greenest Government ever, and we will not do that at the expense of the environment or of jobs in the emerging industries. At the same time, however, we are aware of the pressures that people face due to their energy bills. That is why we have legislated, for instance, to ensure that people are offered the lowest tariff, and it is why we have measures in place to address the winter peak in fuel costs, with £135 available to 2 million people.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

As the Deputy Leader of the House has demonstrated, creative inventiveness has its place in parliamentary debate, but there is a time and place for everything, and it can be taken too far. In light of that, will it be possible to have a debate on the errors—inadvertent, of course—the misrepresentations, inadvertent, and the all-too-frequent inaccuracies, inadvertent, of the Prime Minister in his attempts to answer PMQs?

[Tom Brake]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but there is clearly not such an opportunity beyond the Prime Minister’s weekly attendance at the Dispatch Box, when he puts across the Government’s position on matters of all natures forcefully and effectively. Of course, the Prime Minister is a more regular attendee at the House to make oral statements than his predecessor.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

May we have a debate on how we can continue to build on the legacy of the amazing London 2012? This Saturday, the next major international sporting tournament in this country, the rugby league world cup, will begin with Australia against England and Wales against Italy. Will the Government give it their full support? As a London MP, will the Deputy Leader of the House be going to the semi-final double header at Wembley on 23 November?

[Tom Brake]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was offering me tickets for the game on the 23rd; if so, we can discuss it later. He is right about the rugby league world cup, which could well be the best attended ever. He is also right to highlight the importance of sport, which can tackle some of the health issues that we face and may be used to work with young people to help to build their leadership and team skills, as it is by Cricket for Change, an organisation in my constituency.

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

Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that Parliament and the parliamentary estate should be open to people of all backgrounds and to all our constituents, and that that should not depend on how wealthy or influential they are? Is he aware that the proposed massive increase in the cost of using rooms in the House and on the parliamentary estate will put many charities, third sector groups and small organisations off coming here to hold events? May we have an early debate on the chaotic management and running of this place?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and I think that he is sufficiently experienced to know that that is perhaps not a matter on which I can respond. We can both agree that we want the parliamentary estate to be as open as possible to anybody, but he will also be aware that at the same time Parliament is under a lot of pressure to ensure that it covers its costs. The commercial implications of such matters must therefore also be considered.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Last Saturday night and into Sunday morning, I went out on patrol with Humberside police officers, the excellent police and crime commissioner for Humberside, Matthew Grove, and the magnificent street angels into the streets of Cleethorpes to view the night-time economy. It became evident that a review of the current licensing laws is necessary. Will the Deputy Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on such matters?

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid that I am not in a position to announce time for such a debate. The hon. Gentleman might want to try to secure an Adjournment debate. I am sure that colleagues on both sides of the House will have strong views about their own nightlife and the impact of licensing laws on it. He rightly highlighted the work done by the street angels on his patch, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the street pastors in Sutton, who play a similar role.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Tomorrow is wear it pink day in aid of the Breast Cancer Campaign. LivinginBL, one of the excellent local newspapers in Bolton West, is organising many activities to raise money and awareness. Will the Deputy Leader of the House join me and many thousands of people throughout the country and wear it pink tomorrow?

[Tom Brake]

I hope to be able to help the hon. Lady. When I go home this evening, I will have to check what pink items there are in my wardrobe, and subject to there being a suitable pink tie, pink shirt or, indeed, pink wig, I might well be able to join her tomorrow. It is a fantastic campaign and I am sure that many MPs will have taken advantage of the photo opportunity provided, wearing pink glasses, pink wigs or other pink items. It is an effective way of drawing attention to an effective campaign.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

In the light of a recent conviction in my constituency for the mistreatment of horses, and alongside the Welsh Assembly’s recent proposals on the issue, may we have a debate on tackling fly grazing and the abandonment of horses, which sadly happen all too often in my constituency and across England and Wales?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He will be aware that that is an issue not just in rural areas but in urban and suburban areas such as mine, where horses are often left on local playing fields. I am afraid that I cannot provide any time immediately for that matter to be debated and I will have to refer him to the opportunities provided in Westminster Hall. If there is a greater appetite for such a debate, he could perhaps refer the matter to the Backbench Business Committee through cross-party representation.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

May we have a debate or statement on the Government’s discretionary housing payment policy? Since April, 1,307 households across the public and private rental sectors have applied to Redcar and Cleveland borough council for the discretionary housing payment. Only 358 households have been awarded it, not because eligibility criteria have not been met but because the fund is exhausted, which means that nearly three quarters of households will not receive anything. May we have a statement or debate on the policy, as families in my constituency are in dire straits as a result of this Government’s bedroom tax and other cost-of-living measures?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in response to concerns expressed by local authorities the Government made additional moneys available for the discretionary housing payment. I am sorry that on his patch the funds are, he says, exhausted, but I am aware that a number of other local authorities did not fully access the money made available to them. He will understand the reasons why the Government have proceeded with the changes to the spare room subsidy, and if he has concerns about the policy, we need to hear whether the Labour party would provide additional funding or simply deliver the same as the Government’s programme.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

We recently had the intolerable situation where a triple killer, who murdered his last victim while he was on the run from prison, was not given a whole-life tariff by the judge, because the judge said that that would breach a European Court of Human Rights ruling. I know the Deputy Leader of the House is on the wishy-washy wing of the coalition Government—quite a crowded wing—but will he arrange for a debate and a vote in this House, so that the House can make it clear that we expect judges to impose whole-life tariffs where they see fit, and ignore the views of the pseudo-sham judges at the European Court of Human Rights?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that, but I do not think I would describe myself as wishy-washy in any shape or form. I hope he will acknowledge that there is separation on this issue, and that Members of Parliament and the Government generally should be a little reluctant to interfere in decisions taken by judges.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

In contrast to the previous question, will the Deputy Leader of the House allow a debate on the state of prisons in England? He is probably aware that many inmates have completed their tariffs but cannot be released until they complete an offender behaviour programme, but waiting lists are currently more than five years long. Does he agree that it makes no economic or moral sense to keep people locked up who are eligible for release and incarcerated only because of a paucity of suitable courses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that sensible question and for highlighting the state of prisons in England. That matter was raised during questions last week, and the Government rightly set out that the priority is safety and security in prisons. I agree, however, that if there are people who are in a position to be released but have no access to an offender behaviour programme, the matter needs to be addressed. I will ensure that the Ministry of Justice writes to the hon. Gentleman on that subject.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

One in six men in the country, and in this Chamber, will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during their lives—it is the single biggest killer of middle-aged men. With November looming, will the Deputy Leader of the House join me in expressing support for the Movember campaign? Movember was started by two patients, and has now raised more than £200 million and become the world’s biggest charity in the field. Will the Deputy Leader of the House signal his support and consider becoming a fellow Mo Bro, and can we have a debate in the House on the importance of male health awareness and the involvement of patients in research?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman may be alarmed to hear that I took part in Movember three years ago, but the general view of my trucker-style moustache was that it was best never seen again, and I am afraid that this year I will not be participating. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intends to sport a dramatic moustache—a Mexican moustache perhaps—during November, but I agree that Movember is a fantastic campaign that has caught people’s imagination. Men are not very comfortable talking about prostate cancer and their health in general, and the campaign has highlighted an issue that men of my age—and the hon. Gentleman’s age—need to be aware of and concerned about.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

May we have a debate on reducing VAT on energy bills? Every 1% reduction in VAT means £300 million saved for hard-pressed householders. Will my right hon. Friend lobby the Prime Minister to ensure that regaining control of our VAT rates is the No. 1 part of renegotiation on our relationship with the European Union?

[Tom Brake]

I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that under the EU directive covering VAT it would not currently be possible for VAT on gas and electricity supplies to be reduced below 5%. We know that rising energy prices are hitting many households hard at a difficult time, which is why in response to an earlier question I set out exactly what the Government are doing about the issue. The Government’s view is that the best way to keep everyone’s bills down is to help people save energy, and to ensure there are fair tariffs and to encourage competition, which is exactly what they are doing. If the Government were to pursue the approach that the hon. Gentleman suggests, they would also have to say where the extra money would come from to make up for the loss in VAT.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Has the Deputy Leader of the House seen the recent European Parliament ruling on e-cigarettes, which determines that an e-cigarette is not—I repeat not—a medicinal product? Given that the Government remain committed to increasing regulation in the UK, may we have a Department of Health statement on what action it will take to enable smokers who are looking to reduce their dependency on tobacco to continue to use e-cigarettes?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman is right to ask the Government to set out our position. We were disappointed that the European Commission’s proposal to regulate products including e-cigarettes as medicines was not supported by the European Parliament. The Government believe they need to be regulated as medicines. As he is aware, in the meantime licensed nicotine replacement therapies are available to help to reduce the harm of smoking to smokers and those around them, as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

The Care Quality Commission has raised concerns about maternity services in my local Medway hospital. May we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Health on Government policy on maternity services and what is being done to get more midwives into our hospitals?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for flagging up his concerns about his local hospital in Medway. He will be aware that the Government are taking action on midwives. He might also be aware that there is a record number of midwives in training. There will be 1,300 or so additional qualified midwives by the middle of this academic year in comparison with the beginning of the Parliament.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

Earlier this month, the OECD published a report showing that young adults in England have among the lowest results in the industrialised world in international literacy and numeracy tests. The report showed that this is the only country in the survey in which results are going backwards, with higher numbers in the elder cohort than in the younger cohort. May we therefore have a debate on standards in schools, focusing on why such a high proportion of academies and free schools are classed as outstanding?

[Tom Brake]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I was quite depressed at what the report said on the progress young people are making. Clearly, literacy and numeracy are the foundations on which all further achievement in education depend, and are critical for work and everyday life. We need to do more work to raise the quality of English and maths throughout the country. Our reforms to schools and further education will improve the quality of the teaching work force, reward the best providers and ensure that learners are stretched to achieve the best they can. He might have heard the Minister for Schools set out in his statement last week exactly what we are doing to ensure that standards in all schools are improved.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Like most of my constituents in Kettering, I believe that if a foreign national commits a crime they should be sent back to their country of origin and banned from re-entering the UK. That very sensible policy platform is outlined in my Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the United Kingdom) Bill, which is scheduled for debate tomorrow. Are the Deputy Leader of the House and Her Majesty’s Government inclined to support that sensible policy?

[Tom Brake]

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s Bill and his concern about foreign nationals who commit crimes. We will listen to the debate on his Bill, but I cannot reassure him today from the Dispatch Box that the Government will support it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call finally Mr Christopher Pincher.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know my place; regrettably, you appear to know it, too. Be that as it may, may we have a debate on entrepreneurship? Tomorrow, I am meeting Tom Robinson, who at the age of 22 is one of Tamworth’s youngest entrepreneurs. He began by selling T-shirts from a market stall and is graduating to selling them from his first shop in the town centre. A debate would allow hon. Members to discuss what help we give and what more help we could give to young entrepreneurs such as Tom to help them to get their businesses off the ground.

[Tom Brake]

Clearly, we left the best question till last. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, Tom Robinson, on the effective entrepreneurship he is deploying to promote his business. From small things grow much larger businesses. The Government are clearly committed to helping entrepreneurs. We have made significant funds available—loans-wise—to young people who are setting up businesses. We are growing jobs in the private sector and have the largest number of businesses registered, and business confidence, construction, manufacturing and exports are all up. We are beginning to see the economy as a whole moving in the right direction.

Business of the House

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 21 October—A general debate on the future of the BBC, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the state of natural capital in England and Wales. The subjects of both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 22 October—Second Reading of the Immigration Bill, followed by a debate on a reasoned opinion relating to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Wednesday 23 October—Opposition Day [8th allotted day]. There will be a debate on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland, followed by a debate on air passenger duty. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist Party.

Thursday 24 October—A debate on a motion relating to the Financial Conduct Authority’s redress scheme for the mis-selling of interest rate swap derivatives, followed by a general debate on aviation strategy. The subjects of both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 25 October—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 28 October will include the following:

Monday 28 October—Second Reading of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 29 October—Remaining stages of the Pensions Bill, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to reform of Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Wednesday 30 October—Opposition Day [9th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion; subject to be announced.

Thursday 31 October—Remaining stages of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill.

Friday 1 November—Private Members’ Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that the autumn statement will be made on Wednesday 4 December, and that the business in Westminster Hall on 24 October will be a debate on planning, housing supply and the countryside.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. I also send my best wishes to the Leader of the House as he recuperates from his minor operation.

Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who yesterday won the election to become Deputy Speaker. I hope that she will not mind my saying that it is unusual to see a Scottish Tory being elected. I am sure that I speak for many Labour Members when I say that it has certainly been an experience to be on the receiving end of the vote-gathering techniques of the Conservative party. We enjoyed welcoming all the candidates to a parliamentary Labour party hustings, and I am pleased to say that we managed to resist the temptation to set them a bushtucker trial.

Last week, I asked where the Offender Rehabilitation Bill (Lords) had disappeared to. I note that it is still missing. Will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm my suspicion that the Government are deliberately holding up the Bill so that they can privatise the probation service before they bring the Bill back to the House of Commons?

When the Government announced new plans for the funding of social care, they claimed that no elderly person would be forced to sell his or her home to pay for it. At the Tory party conference, the Health Secretary was at it again, promising

“for those who need residential care…We’ll stop them ever having to sell the home they have worked hard for all their life to pay for the cost of it.”

However, during the debate on the Care Bill in the other place, those grand ministerial claims have been exposed as empty PR posturing, and the truth has finally emerged: older people will be helped only if they have less than £23,000 in the bank. Given the huge disparity between the Health Secretary’s claims and the modest reality, will the Deputy Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement to be made?

It is a rare treat to face the Deputy Leader across the Dispatch Box. I often wonder what he is thinking when he is sitting next to the Leader of the House on Thursday mornings. I suppose that we are going to find out today. I am sure the Deputy Leader is aware, however, that for 39 of the 40 months for which the Government have been in power, prices have risen faster than wages. Labour’s promise to freeze energy bills until 2017 would be of real benefit to those who are struggling. What is the Government’s policy? The Tories want to scrap energy efficiency measures for the poorest in order to reduce bills, but the Deputy Prime Minister thinks that that would put prices up. What does the Deputy Leader think? We have heard only this morning that British Gas is going to increase its prices by nearly 10%. Is the Deputy Leader proud that the Government are arguing among themselves while the cost of living squeeze just gets worse? Would it not be easier to freeze energy bills?

Yesterday the Prime Minister could not clear up the confusion over his own policy on marriage tax breaks, which will benefit only one third of couples. The Deputy Prime Minister has made his opposition clear. So when this policy eventually comes to the House, will the Deputy Leader of the House and his party be voting against it, or will this just be another example of the Liberal Democrats saying one thing and doing another?

The Deputy Leader of the House will remember that before the last election he signed the National Union of Students pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees. I am sure he also remembers that just months after the election he was voting to treble them. I noted this week with interest that the Deputy Prime Minister has made another Lib Dem pledge on tuition fees: he has promised not to increase them to £16,000 a year. Will the Deputy Leader be signing up to that one, too, or has he learned his lesson? I am sure nothing will worry the hundreds of thousands of young people considering going to university more than another promise from the Liberal Democrats on tuition fees.

I understand that the Deputy Leader is heavily involved in his local save St Helier hospital campaign. In fact, he is so involved that the phone number and address on the campaign website is that of his own constituency office. To clear up any confusion, can the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that he is actually a part of the Government who are closing the hospital? Is there not a pattern of behaviour here: the Deputy Leader is campaigning against himself on St Helier, the Deputy Prime Minister is campaigning against himself on library closures forced by Government cuts in Sheffield, and now they are ready to sign up to a new pledge on tuition fees? The more they protest, the more we see right through them: you can’t trust the Liberal Democrats.

[Tom Brake]

May I start by thanking the shadow Leader of the House for her kind words, which I will pass on to the Leader of the House, who is recovering well? I am grateful to her for those remarks. I also echo her comments about the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who not only is a Scottish Tory who got elected, but who did so under the single transferable vote, which is clearly very welcome, too.

On the issue of the funding of social care, I am sure the hon. Lady will be aware that no decision has been taken on that, and the consultation is still open and if Members want to make a submission, they have until 25 October to do so.

We have just had a full hour of Department of Energy and Climate Change questions, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did a very good job of explaining why Labour’s policy of freezing energy prices is a con. In case the hon. Lady was not here to hear that, it is because prices will go up both before and after the freeze, and the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that if things changed globally during the freeze, he would not be in a position to hold prices down. That is why we do not support Labour’s position, but what the Government have done is maintain winter fuel payments, worth £300, cold weather payments of £25, and the warm home discount, which is worth £135. Indeed, more generally in relation to cost of living issues, under this Government 25 million basic rate taxpayers will be £700 better off next year, and 3 million people have been taken out of income tax entirely.

The hon. Lady mentioned the save St Helier hospital campaign. I thank her for promoting that and, of course, I am fully behind that campaign. It seems as though she is chiding me for running a campaign in support of my local hospital, something I will make sure Labour-inclined voters are aware of, but the important thing about the save St Helier campaign is that the review that has taken place was not conducted by politicians, but the proposals came from a team of clinicians and, on that team, St Helier hospital was under-represented, which is why we are campaigning against this. I am very pleased to be able to conclude my remarks on the subject of save St Helier hospital, because that is a campaign I intend to win.

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

Last week, the all-party group on excellence in the built environment, which I chair, published its report on the Government’s green deal for the domestic residential market. I was delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who is responsible for planning, attended the launch. May we have a debate on this issue, so that the Government can bring us all up to date on the progress they are making on the green deal and how better insulation in homes will help to reduce the number of families and individuals living in fuel poverty?

[Tom Brake]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend was able to be here for Energy questions earlier, but energy efficiency and the green deal came up then. Let me detail some of the specific things that the Government have done. In October 2012, the Department of Energy and Climate Change offered English local authorities the opportunity to bid for funding to reduce the extent of fuel poverty, and £31 million is now going into 60 projects involving just under 170 local authorities. Of course, we have the Warm Front scheme—it was closed in January for new applications but we are still processing others and measures are being taken on the back of that. In response to the shadow Leader of the House, I also set out the measures we are taking to support people who are in fuel poverty or are struggling to pay their bills with a range of initiatives, including the warm home discount, winter fuel payments and cold weather payments.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the debate next Wednesday on the fate of the Arctic Sunrise crew, who are still being held captive in Murmansk. It is nearly a month since the Russian authorities hijacked the boat and unlawfully detained and arrested the crew, including six Britons, three of whom are from Devon. They have now been charged with the ludicrous charge of piracy. May we have an urgent statement from a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister on what the British Government are doing to secure their release?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, which raises a significant issue. Indeed, the Prime Minister responded to it yesterday in Prime Minister’s questions, because one of his constituents is also affected. The British Government have rightly made representations, and I want to see those people released as soon as possible.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Following its recent survey of businesses, the Hull and Humber chamber of commerce stated that

“the economic recovery in the Humber region is gathering pace”.

Constituencies such as mine contain a large proportion of low-income and middle-income households, and we need to ensure that they are the first to benefit from the recovery. Will the Deputy Leader of the House find time for a debate when these issues may be fully aired?

[Tom Brake]

Clearly, we want to ensure that those on low incomes and middle incomes benefit first from the recovery, and that is exactly what is happening in the tax measures we are introducing. I am pleased that my hon. Friend is detecting good news economically in his constituency. Some 1.4 million more people are in work today in the private sector than there were at the time of the general election. On a whole number of indicators things are moving in the right direction. There should be no room for complacency, but we are beginning to see very positive indicators in the economy generally.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on the ever-increasing cost of in-work benefits, given that it would appear that the taxpayer is having to subsidise employees of companies that are earning millions of pounds in profits? It is not about time that they paid decent wages and cut the welfare bill?

[Tom Brake]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that where employers are in a position to pay the living wage, they should do so, but that should not be at the expense of jobs. So he makes a valid point, but how employers address that is a decision for them.

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

There is a great deal of concern about the protection of vulnerable children, so may we have a debate on how child protection services in Somerset, which were adjudged to be outstanding just five years ago, were last year judged to be inadequate, with Ofsted saying this year that there has been no improvement? Does it not show an astonishing failure of political leadership and management that Somerset county council, which does not face overwhelming demands on its social services, is now considered to be among the 17 worst local authorities in the country at protecting our children?

[Tom Brake]

May I say what a pleasure it is to respond to a question from my hon. Friend, who did such a good job as Deputy Leader of the House before me? The Government take any failure to deliver adequate children’s social care services very seriously. I recognise the challenges that local authorities can face in delivering strong child protection services, but it is right that Ofsted should identify weaknesses clearly and set out the areas where improvement is needed. I can assure him that Ministers are acting robustly to ensure that failure is turned around quickly and sustainably. In Somerset, that process has happened. Department for Education officials have met senior representatives from Somerset council and Ministers intend to issue the council with a notice to improve. Clearly, my hon. Friend’s strong concerns are now on the record, too.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The earnings limit for carers allowance was last increased in April 2010. Carers in my Bridgend constituency tell me that if they work more than 16 hours on the national minimum wage, they will lose their carers allowance. Carers are critical to our economy; they provide a vital service and support to vulnerable people. Is it not wrong that they should be punished in this way? May we have a debate on how we can support carers and ensure that changes to the benefit system do not leave them worse off?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question, because it gives me an opportunity to reinforce her point about the excellent work that carers do, which is acknowledged on both sides of the House. She has raised a specific issue about the earnings limit and I will ensure that her concerns are passed on to Ministers at the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the effect that decisions taken by one Government agency have on other Government Departments and on the public purse? Training for Travel in my constituency, which provides training for the travel industry, was days away from transferring its training providing business to another provider when the Skills Funding Agency told it that it was cancelling its training contract. The result is that that company is likely to fold, resulting in hundreds of thousands of pounds having to be paid out by other Government Departments in statutory redundancy and the like.

[Tom Brake]

The issue my hon. Friend raises is quite complex and I have a significantly complex reply that I could give him, but in the circumstances I think it would be better for me to ensure that he is written to. He might also want to raise the matter in Business, Innovation and Skills questions next week, if that is appropriate.

[Mr Speaker]

That is immensely considerate of the Deputy Leader of the House and we thank him for that.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May we have a debate or a statement about the regulations governing major retail developments in local areas? Late last night, I was contacted by residents on Melton road who were complaining bitterly about Sainsbury’s, which is trying to put up a huge store on the junction of Melton road and Troon way. The work goes on throughout the night. We are trying to make Leicester into the city of culture; Sainsbury’s is trying to make Leicester into the city of roadworks.

[Tom Brake]

There might be an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to raise the subject at Communities and Local Government questions on Monday and we will have a debate on Thursday on planning, housing supply and the countryside, and he might be able to raise the issue as part of the planning aspect.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May we have a debate on restoring public trust in the police? Is it not the case that David Shaw, the chief constable of West Mercia police, should take immediate and appropriate action against the officer implicated in lying against my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and I am sure that he will have heard the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister state their position. The behaviour was unacceptable and action would be appropriate, but clearly that is something for the Crown Prosecution Service and others to consider, rather than Ministers.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Has the Deputy Leader of the House seen this week’s article in The Economist, which referred to towns such as Hartlepool, Hull, Middlesbrough and Wolverhampton as “rustbelt Britain” and urged the Government to ignore and abandon them? May we have a debate on the issue so that we can reject that ridiculous notion and highlight the promise and potential of my area, or would such a debate merely confirm that the Government have already abandoned areas such as Hartlepool?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter on which there is agreement. No one wants to abandon any towns or cities, and that is why the Government have invested as heavily as we have in the regional growth fund to ensure that jobs in the private sector are there. We want to work constructively with him on that issue.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the factors that lead to business investment and job creation? Honeytop Speciality Foods in my constituency has already exported naan bread to India. It is creating 200 extra jobs this month, and it has turned Dunstable into the crumpet capital of the United Kingdom. But it gets even better. I have now learned of an extra £22 million investment to produce the fastest burger bun plant in the whole of Europe. Is it not critical that we have this type of investment across the whole of the United Kingdom?

[Tom Brake]

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman raised the same issue last week. He will remember that the Leader of the House promised to go and sample a crumpet if he was in his constituency. Last night I was at a planning meeting at my local authority to support strong local opposition to the opening of a fast-food restaurant, so it would be hypocritical of me to offer to come and eat a burger with the hon. Gentleman. However, he has put on record the fact that substantial, welcome investment is going into his constituency, which I am sure will create lots of jobs, building on what the Government have already achieved—the 1.4 million jobs that we have helped to create in the private sector.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The prison population is approaching record highs and the numbers of prison staff are approaching record lows, and that is causing prison staff up and down the country to have great health and safety concerns. The situation has been described as a powder keg. May we have a debate on how we approach safety and health for prison staff before we as politicians suffer greatly as a result of a tragic incident that is waiting to happen in the Prison Service?

[Tom Brake]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on drawing attention to that. Clearly, we all want our prisons to be safe environments both for prison staff and for prisoners. He has made a specific request about staffing levels and the impact on health and safety, and I will ensure that a written response is sent to him.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Far too often, constituents of mine end up in destitution when their claim for employment and support allowance ends. Whereas they qualify for jobseeker’s allowance or income support, such a claim is not put in place. Will the Government introduce a motion to authorise the Department of Work and Pensions to institute automatically a claim in appropriate circumstances while the legislative environment is resolved?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He said something on which we can achieve consensus, which is that no one should be left destitute. If there is an appropriate way of ensuring the transition to which he referred, I am sure that DWP will seek to find it.

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

May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to take time this week to read the article that I published in The House magazine this week about how we treat the people who work in this Parliament of ours? Most of our constituents and certainly mine in Huddersfield believe that this place should be a beacon of good treatment of people at work. Zero-hours contracts, no contracts and short-term contracts dominate this House now and it is about time we put our shop right. Let us lead; let us be a beacon. Let us treat our staff well.

[Tom Brake]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was able to speak in the Opposition day debate on that very subject yesterday. If he did, he will have heard the Minister’s response. I agree with him that we should be an exemplar in terms of how we treat people who work in this place. I will endeavour in the next few hours to track down a copy of The House magazine so that I can read his article.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Over the past five years QinetiQ in Boscombe Down in my constituency has doubled the number of new graduate trainees and apprentices that it employs. It has also set up the 5% campaign to challenge other companies to aim for 5% of their work force being drawn from apprentices and new graduate trainees. Will the Deputy Leader of the House make time for a statement on how the Government can encourage this worthwhile campaign?

[Tom Brake]

My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the importance of employers taking on graduates and apprentices. He will be aware that we have created a million extra apprenticeships, which is beginning to have a real effect. I am sure that in the contacts that both he and I have with employers, they underline how much added value apprentices bring to their company. So he has helped publicise this today, and I am sure that all Members will want to do so in the contacts that they have with employers.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

The Deputy Leader of the House said that he was in the Chamber for Energy questions. He will have heard me tell the House that Grangemouth oil refinery and chemicals is shut down until further notice. It is not only the first time that there has been a full, cold shutdown of that plant, which represents 10% of the Scottish economy, in the 21 years that I have represented the town, but it is the first time since I first worked there as a student in 1967. The replies from the Energy Minister were all about securing supply and everyone getting supplies. May we have a statement from the Business Secretary and a debate in the Chamber about the fact that planning clearly went into this so that the company, which is owned by one man and two others but mainly by one man, who may be the equivalent of a Russian oligarch and may have been involved in collusion with this Government to store up supplies so that he could take on the work force and break them because he wants to take £50 million out of the terms and conditions of employment of the people on that site, so we need a debate on collusion—

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) has put on record his concerns for a second time. I will not repeat some of the language that he used, but clearly from the Government’s perspective we would encourage the employers and the unions to work together to ensure that the matter is resolved. If he feels as strongly about the issue as he clearly does, there will be an opportunity for him to raise it again next Thursday during questions to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

The editor of The Guardian recently boasted online that he was “taking precautions” to prevent UK security services from having access to the files of vital national security information that he had sent outwith the remit of the UK courts to The New York Times. Security sources are still trying to decrypt these files, which The Independent described as “highly detailed” and a “threat to national security”. May we have a statement to reassure the House that The Guardian will be asked for a decryption key and if none is forthcoming, action will be taken?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman has been successful in securing a debate on Tuesday next week, when I am sure he will get a much more detailed response to his concerns than I am able to give him. Clearly, he is right that intelligence leaks are causing serious damage to the UK’s national security. The Government have a duty to protect national security and should make it clear to media organisations that publishing highly classified material damages our ability to protect this country. Journalists are not in a position to make national security assessments on what should or should not be published. As he will be aware, however, it is a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to determine whether a crime has been committed and what action should be taken as a result. As I said, he will have an opportunity on Tuesday to raise these matters in detail.

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

In view of what we have just heard and what was said by the Prime Minister yesterday, by the Home Secretary before the Home Affairs Committee and by the head of MI5, is the Deputy Leader of the House aware that many of us believe that what is happening at present are threats and smears against The Guardian for publishing details, which is not in any way a threat to the security of our country, but information which the public have a right to know? As the Liberal Democrats are supposed to be ardent defenders of our civil liberties, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will bear it in mind that it would be useful to have an overall debate on intelligence and security matters and not just leave it to the Committee which meets in private session.

[Tom Brake]

I will not restate what I have said, but the Government clearly have a duty to protect our national security. If a newspaper—whichever one—is in the business of publishing information that damages our national security or circulating information that has the potential to do so, the Government are required to respond. If that newspaper publishes information on certain matters that have no relevance to national security, clearly we want them to be able to do so.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

In the next few days we will hear an announcement on the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, which is obviously vital to UK plc. The Government will no doubt make a statement to that effect, which will be welcome, but may we have a debate in the Chamber to consider it more closely, because of the importance to skills and inward investment and what it will mean for UK plc over the next 100 years?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman is right to expect a statement on the matter very soon, and it would be appropriate for him to take that opportunity to make his point and to listen to the responses to all the other questions that will be asked.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

May we have a statement on the Government’s support for traditional music, as this year Wingates brass band is celebrating its 140th anniversary? On 26 October it will hold a concert at which two new specially written pieces will be introduced, as well as the launch of “From Bible Class to World Class”, a book about its history. Will the Deputy Leader of the House join me in congratulating Wingates brass band on that fantastic achievement?

[Tom Brake]

I join the hon. Lady in congratulating that musical ensemble. I am afraid that my briefing pack, although extensive, did not run to traditional music, but she has put the matter on the record and I am sure that in future all Members will want to know more about that important subject.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

The Commission on Human Medicines has today recommended that schools should be permitted to keep an asthma inhaler for general use for when children who do not have recourse to their own inhaler suffer an attack, which Members will be shocked to learn is currently against the regulations. May we please have a debate on support for children in our schools who suffer from chronic conditions such as asthma?

[Tom Brake]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on campaigning on the matter. The Government are grateful to the Commission on Human Medicines for its recommendation and intend to act on it. We will consult on changing the regulations to allow schools, if they so wish, to hold a spare asthma inhaler for emergencies and to develop appropriate protocols for their staff to ensure its safe and proper use. She will have opportunities on Monday, during Communities and Local Government questions, and on Tuesday, during Health questions, to raise the matter of schools and health.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

We already know that accident and emergency departments in the north-east are to receive no extra funding this winter, but this week we learnt that the South Tees clinical commissioning group’s per-head funding is to be cut significantly, alongside other north-east CCGs. Following that, Monitor indicated that it will be investigating South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust for a persistent failure to meet targets on waiting times, and on clostridium difficile and for a rise in never events. May we have a debate in the House in Government time about NHS funding for the north-east?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I do not have the specific figures about north-east funding in front of me, but he will be aware that the Government have committed an extra £12.7 billion to the NHS, in contrast with Opposition Front Benchers, who I think described that proposal as “irresponsible”. The level of funding going into the NHS is very significant. On A and E and NHS waiting times, average waiting times remain low and stable. The number of patients who have been waiting longer than 52 weeks is 352—clearly that is 352 too many—but that compares with a total of 18,458 at the end of May 2010, when his party left power.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Ellen, a year 11 student from my part of Somerset, wrote to me about the cancellation of her GCSE maths exam in November, having heard about it not through her school nor through Parliament but through the Sunday papers. May we have a debate to consider the method of communicating such changes, which Ellen says causes confusion, distress, upset and anger, and to see whether it would be preferable and more sensible for changes to apply only to students who started studying for their exams last month rather than making dramatic changes for those like Ellen who, since 2009, had planned her work with her teachers for an exam next month?

[Tom Brake]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend was able to be in the Chamber on Monday when the Minister for Schools made a statement about standards; she may find that pertinent to the issue. She has raised a specific point about which I will ensure that the Department for Education writes to her.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

My constituents continue to suffer from cold calling by claims management companies. Will the Deputy Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Justice to make a statement to this House on the performance of his Department in regulating those companies, including looking at whether to transfer that responsibility to the Financial Conduct Authority?

[Tom Brake]

I am sure that every Member in the Chamber has sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point. These calls are persistent and an irritant, and we need to ensure that, as far as possible, the matter is addressed. He asked for the Secretary of State for Justice to respond to the issue. I will make sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of his concerns and writes to him about the matter.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on local authorities’ winter highways maintenance preparedness?

[Tom Brake]

I am sure that we are all hoping our local authorities will be getting in the appropriate levels of salt and sand to ensure that we have, as far as possible, an accident-free winter. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that the Department for Transport continues to liaise with local and national partners to improve winter resilience so that this country enters the forthcoming winter season well prepared. A national strategic salt reserve of no less than 425,000 tonnes is going to be brought to bear on this issue. If he wanted to raise specific issues about local authorities, he could do so on Monday at Communities and Local Government questions.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 589, which deals with lower taxes for lower earners?

[That this House welcomes the Government taking 2.2 million people out of income tax so far by increasing the personal allowance threshold; further welcomes the Government raising the income tax threshold even further to £10,000 in 2015; notes that the Government is committed to helping the low paid with the cost of living by lowering taxes so that they can keep more of their own money; further notes that the National Insurance threshold remains at £7,748; and therefore urges the Government to examine the possibilities of increasing the threshold for National Insurance in the long term to help low earners with the cost of living.]

My right hon. Friend mentioned earlier the fact that our Conservative Chancellor has cut taxes for 20 million lower earners in our country. May we have a debate on whether we can help lower earners still further by raising the threshold for national insurance?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is a doughty campaigner on many issues and has had great success with some of them. I am pleased that the issues he mentions are very much on the Government’s agenda. Once we have hit the threshold to allow people to earn £10,000 before they pay any income tax, the Liberal Democrats would like to push the matter further, and the Government as a whole might like to do so as well. He raises the specific issue of national insurance contributions, and I am sure that he would support the Government’s initiative to reduce those in relation to employers. I can assure him that I have just read his early-day motion, and fantastic it is too.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Deputy Leader of the House is demonstrating that he could be Leader of the House by filling in for him today. Could this be extended so that other deputies could take over for a day? Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could take over for a day; may I suggest 1 April?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. It was all going so well until the last phrase. In fact, I misheard it so I will just stick with the first part. I think it is entirely appropriate for deputies to take over on the occasions when they are required to do so. I was rather expecting my shadow, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), to take over for today as well; I am not quite sure what happened there.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Today is international credit union day and the Bishop of Stafford is opening in a Stafford department store a branch of the Staffordshire credit union, with which I have an account. Could we have a debate on how credit unions can provide viable and excellent competition against payday lenders and other forms of credit on the high street?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Perhaps I should declare an interest as a member of the Croydon, Sutton and Merton credit union. Clearly, there is real potential for credit unions to enter the market and provide people with loans at low rates of interest and to make a sustainable contribution. I am sure that Members of all parties are interested in the subject of credit unions, so the hon. Gentleman may want to consider making representations to the Backbench Business Committee through an all-party delegation.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

Data published yesterday show that my Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency is one of the top three in the country for falling unemployment, with particularly encouraging falls of more than 40% year on year for both long-term unemployment and 18 to 24-year-old claimants. Could we have a debate on job creation, in order to explore not just that positive news, but how we can accelerate growth and ensure that it is spread around the country?

[Tom Brake]

I would welcome such a debate. I am pleased for the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that there has been a significant drop in unemployment in his constituency, which is something that is being replicated to a greater or lesser extent around the whole country. Employment is up, unemployment is down and youth unemployment is slightly down. Clearly, there are still many issues that we need to address and the debate suggested by the hon. Gentleman might give the Government the opportunity to focus on youth unemployment, on which we could make even more progress.

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

For some time I have been in correspondence with the Foreign Office on the unacceptable and illegal discrimination faced by UK and other foreign national lecturers in Italy. Despite repeated attempts to get the European Commission to act and intervene, no action has been taken and the Commission is now looking to close the file. Could we therefore have an important debate on this clear and systemic breach by Italy of the free movement of workers within the European Union, and its discrimination against them, and the failings of the European Commission to act on it?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman is right. This is a serious issue and it is the Government’s view that the discrimination faced by UK and foreign national lecturers in Italy is not only unacceptable, but illegal. We have been pressing the Italian authorities to find a solution and the hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Minister for Universities and Science met the Italian Education Minister on 5 October and raised the problems faced by foreign lecturers working in Italy. He received assurances that the Italians are actively looking into a solution over the next year.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May we have a debate on what I think is the case that someone from my constituency of Beckenham who happens to be a Scotsman and wants to go to university in Scotland has to pay tuition fees, whereas someone who lives in Scotland who happens to be an Englishman does not and someone who comes from France, Germany, Italy or Spain does not, either? It seems extraordinary.

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman is right. He will be aware that higher education is a devolved matter for Scotland and that under EU law member states cannot discriminate on grounds of nationality against people from other member states in the conditions of access to vocational training, which includes higher education. Where certain residency and nationality conditions are met, EU nationals and their family members will qualify for home fee status and will therefore be treated the same with regard to tuition fees as UK nationals who also satisfy the residency conditions.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), I welcome the drop in unemployment in my constituency of Mid Derbyshire. I visited the local A4e last week, which is very successful at getting more than 100 long-term unemployed people a month into employment, but I was told that its biggest problem related to those with mental illness. May we have a debate on how we can further help people with mental illness who are long-term unemployed?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Lady is right that organisations that are seeking to address long-term unemployment are coming across people with substantial challenges such as mental health issues and drug or alcohol addiction. The Government are committed to assisting them through various work programmes. She has made a pertinent point that requires a written response. She may be interested to know that I am meeting Rethink Mental Illness later today to talk about the sorts of issues that she has raised.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

A few months ago, the Secretary of State for Health rightly made a statement to announce the suspension of the Safe and Sustainable review into children’s heart surgery after the Independent Reconfiguration Panel found that it had been flawed and biased. It seems that the same thing may be happening again. May we have another statement on the composition of the clinical reference group because three of its four members established a position in 2010 on what should happen? One of them, Anne Keatley-Clarke, the chief executive of the Children’s Heart Federation, has behaved in a thoroughly unprofessional manner. The Independent Reconfiguration Panel described her charity’s role as

“a source of unhelpful divisiveness”.

May we have a statement so that we can discover why a supposedly neutral body is being set up in such a biased way?

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid that I cannot guarantee my hon. Friend a statement, but I can offer him the opportunity to raise the matter at Health questions on Tuesday. He has made serious allegations about the composition of the clinical reference group and it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State for Health to respond.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

Principled employment agencies throughout the United Kingdom are suffering and some are closing because of the practices of unprincipled employment agencies, which exploit staff by underpaying them and incorporating expenses into their remuneration, thereby undercutting the principled agencies that pay people properly. May we have a debate on how the rules could be changed to stop that unfair practice?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that issue, of which I was not aware. I am sure that she will pursue the matter at Business, Innovation and Skills questions next Thursday. It might be possible for me to secure a response for her in the interim.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

As the Deputy Leader of the House knows, the Government are planning to introduce a hybrid Bill into the House before the end of the year on the vexed subject of High Speed 2. It will be accompanied by an environmental statement that contains more than 50,000 pages of information. On the day on which it is laid, the Government’s consultation period will commence. It is rumoured that it will be only eight weeks long and will take place over the Christmas period. Will he grant a debate on the efficiency and effectiveness of the consultation periods that are being allowed by the Government, to ensure in particular that my constituents and other people who will be affected along the line have a decent time to reply to what will be one of the largest environmental statements in history?

[Tom Brake]

Again, I am not in a position to guarantee such a debate. However, my right hon. Friend will be aware that the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill will be debated in this place on Thursday 31 October and she may have an opportunity to raise those issues during that debate. She will also be aware that there have been many legal challenges to what the Government are doing on this issue, but that overwhelmingly the Government have been successful in overturning them.

[Andrew Bridgen]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Speaker’s Statement

Tom Brake Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we proceed to the next Opposition day debate, I am now in a position to announce the result of the election of a Deputy Speaker, following the ballot held today.

Five hundred and fifty-one votes were cast, with no spoilt ballot papers. The counting went to six stages. Five hundred and thirteen valid votes were cast in that round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 257 votes. The person elected First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means with 273 votes is Mrs Eleanor Laing. The other candidate in that round was Mr Brian Binley, who received 240 votes.

Eleanor Laing will take up her post immediately. I congratulate the hon. Lady warmly and I may say on behalf of my colleagues and myself that we all greatly look forward to working with her. In the process I should like, on behalf, I am sure, of the whole House, to thank all the candidates for participating in this election and for a contest which showed the House at its best.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

rose—

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s typically gracious words. What she said by way of tribute to the staff of the House, who are always exemplary in professionalism, discretion and efficiency, will have been noted, in particular.

[Tom Brake]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope that it is in order to congratulate the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on behalf of the Government on her election as Deputy Speaker. I wish her every success in that post.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to echo the comments of the Deputy Leader of the House. The hon. Member for Epping Forest has a strong record in political and constitutional reform and will make a very good Deputy Speaker.

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

Tom Brake Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

I made it clear that because this is the second and last day on Report and because we must have Third Reading, at this round of our deliberations we cannot do that in this building. Other work is taking place, however, not least in the Joint Committee on which I serve with colleagues from both Houses. We want to report in time for our work to be taken into account up the corridor in the House of Lords. Any amendments made in the Lords must still come back to this place, so I ask the Government to give time for the Committees that are working and have not reported to report and for those reports to be considered by the Government in good time to be seen by colleagues in the Lords and for the independent commission to report and to be seen, provided it gets on with the job quickly.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

Before I tackle new clauses 2 and 3 and the amendments, I welcome the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) to his place. I am not sure whether this is his last appearance in his current position—

[Wayne David]

Probably.

[Tom Brake]

Okay. I also welcome the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who is making his first appearance in this capacity, as well as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who is staying put, I believe. This is also perhaps the first opportunity for me to welcome the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). He might be familiar with a quote from Christopher Hitchens:

“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

He might have found during the debate that a lot is being asserted by Opposition Members without evidence. Clearly, the Government dismiss that with evidence rather than without it.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly made an enticing offer that we should pause the Bill, but I am afraid that I shall have to decline. I can only imagine the hue and cry from Labour were we to do nothing with the Bill only for someone to spend just under £1 million in one constituency or another during the run-up to the next general election to try to unseat a candidate they did not want to support. Would the hon. Gentleman then accuse us of failing to take action?

We have also heard some examples of Opposition Members’ belief that the Bill would have stopped updated health and safety provisions in relation to mining disasters. We heard from the Chair of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform that the Labour party would not have existed had the Bill been in place. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will become familiar with such arguments, which are completely outwith anything the Government propose in the Bill.

New clause 2 would require the Government and the Electoral Commission to undertake a post-legislative assessment of the impact of part 2 on third parties campaigning in elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly and on third parties campaigning in Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland constituencies for the UK parliamentary elections. That assessment would also have to consider the impact of part 2 on referendums in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Part 2 would not come into force until a report of the assessment was laid before Parliament.

Only some of the part 2 provisions apply to third parties campaigning in elections to the devolved Administrations. At the time of the Bill’s introduction, the Government published an impact assessment to accompany it. The analysis has been thorough. To require the Government to undertake another analysis at a later date serves no purpose. In addition, the Electoral Commission already has a statutory function of reporting on the conduct of elections under current legislation. As part of that function, the Government would expect the commission to examine the impact of changes to rules on third-party campaigning at future elections. It would not be for the Government to duplicate the role of the independent regulator.

The main thrust of the remarks of the hon. Member for Caerphilly was about the potential risk of impact on the Scottish referendum. I want to make it clear that the Bill does not have an impact on referendums. Although the regulated period for the 2015 UK parliamentary election will overlap with the regulated period for the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, spending in the Scottish referendum is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Such expenditure could not, in our view, reasonably be regarded as intended to promote electoral success and would therefore not be controlled under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 or regulated by the Bill. We believe that expenditure incurred during the regulated period for the referendum would be treated as referendum expenditure and not controlled expenditure for the election, unless there was a clear or direct link to a campaign in the election. We do not think that the commencement of part 2 should be delayed as the hon. Gentleman said.

[Mr Allen]

Up until yesterday, the Electoral Commission, which is charged by Government and the House in these matters, was still stating:

“We await confirmation of the Government’s view of the impact of the Bill on the referendum on independence for Scotland.”

So even yesterday, the Electoral Commission was unclear. The Minister is stating unequivocally that there will be no impact whatsoever on the contending parties—those that support voting yes, voting no or whatever—and there will be no impact whatsoever on the independence campaign by any of the players or third parties. This was not made clear to the Electoral Commission even yesterday, when the question arose.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which gives me an opportunity to restate the fact that the Bill has no impact on the Scottish referendum. The Electoral Commission wanted that clarified, and I have today very publicly done so. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had clarified that point in discussions with the Electoral Commission yesterday.

[Wayne David]

Surely, the comment from the Deputy Leader of the House depends on clearly differentiating expenditure for election campaigning and referendum campaigning. We might find that sums of money are used for identical purposes at the same time. Common sense dictates that that is bound to lead to complications.

[Tom Brake]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House in 1999 when PPERA was being debated and when it became an Act in 2000. That Act seeks to address that sort of issue. Our position is clear. I do not think that I need to restate it a third time, but I will: the Scottish referendum is not affected in any way by what we are debating here.

I shall move on to new clause 3, which would require the Electoral Commission to identify the Bill’s impact on both its own resources and on third parties. It would require the commission to lay a full cost projection before Parliament within one month of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. As I have just explained, the Government have already published an impact assessment to accompany the Bill. That assessment considers the impact on both the Electoral Commission and third parties. The assessment estimates that the lowered registration thresholds will bring 30 more third parties into the regime administered by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—that is, third parties that campaign for the electoral success of a party or candidate.

The assessment also estimates that only 10% of third-party organisations will see their expenditure affected by the reduced spending limits proposed in the Bill. At the 2010 UK general election, only two organisations even passed the lower limits proposed in the Bill. There will be a relatively small administrative cost to each registered third party as a result of the new reporting provisions that the Bill introduces. The impact assessment considers that the enforcement cost to the Electoral Commission will rise by a maximum of £390,000 annually. Let me say again that this analysis is comprehensive, and I see no need to repeat it after the Bill has received Royal Assent.

The Electoral Commission states in its parliamentary briefing:

“We do not support this amendment since there are more appropriate vehicles for consideration of these issues.”

The Electoral Commission is already required, under PPERA, to submit an estimate of its income and expenditure to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission each financial year. That estimate must indicate what the commission considers its requirements for resources for the next five-year period might be. There is therefore already provision in legislation for the commission to provide the information that the amendment seeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid I am going to disappoint the hon. Gentleman by restating what I have said. We have already carried out an impact assessment and the Electoral Commission will no doubt want to conduct one on the impact of third parties.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) referred to amendment 65. I can assure him that the Government will listen to the Committee’s views, although we are working to a timetable that requires the Bill to be in place to address the next general election, and the regulated period for that starts 12 months before. We will of course listen to the Committee’s views and to the views expressed by others, including the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Electoral Commission or anyone else who has views on the subject. We are not closed to other views.

[Angela Smith]

Is the Deputy Leader of the House therefore saying that he and the Government will listen to the views of the Committee and the independent commission before the Bill goes to the House of Lords?

[Tom Brake]

No. The hon. Lady paraphrases me incorrectly. That is not what I said. I said that we would listen to the views, but at the same time we are working to a timetable. The sooner those views are available the better, and the sooner there will be an opportunity for them to be considered.

Amendment 65 would amend clause 41 in order to prevent part 2 from coming into force until a Committee of either House has undertaken an inquiry and published a report on the impact of the Bill. As drafted, however, the amendment does not in fact require an inquiry to take place—it merely assumes that one might. The amendment’s effectiveness is therefore limited, as in the absence of any inquiry part 2 will come into force regardless. I once more reiterate my earlier comments: the Government have already published an impact assessment to accompany the Bill. That assessment considers the impact on both the Electoral Commission and third parties, and is thorough.

Amendments 66, 4, 5 and 6, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) spoke, would amend clause 41 so that the entire provisions of part 2 came into force on Royal Assent, subject of course to the transitional provision in clause 42. It is more appropriate—this is the response to the query he raised—for certain provisions, namely clauses 30, 31, 34 and 35, to be commenced at a date appointed by the Secretary of State, rather than on Royal Assent. That is normal practice. The purpose is to allow preparations to take place and the people involved to be brought up to speed on those aspects of the law, rather than forcing adoption on the day of Royal Assent.

[Mr Chope]

The right hon. Gentleman says that it is important that people should be able to get up to speed, but many of the Bill’s provisions will take effect on the day of Royal Assent. How is it that people will be able to get up to speed on those provisions in time but not on this provision?

[Tom Brake]

Clearly the Government have made an assessment of the areas where it is possible to prepare in time for Royal Assent and those where it is not, which I think is reflected in the clauses to which I have just referred.

Clauses 30, 31, 34 and 35 do not have a direct effect on the regulated period of the other provisions in part 2, which are affected by the transitional provision. It is more appropriate for clauses 30, 31, 34 and 35 to be subject to commencement by order in the usual way. Amendment 67 takes the opposite approach and appears to intend that, subject to amendment 66, which we have just discussed, all of part 2 but clauses 30, 31, 34 and 35 would not come into force on Royal Assent. However, its effect would in fact be the contrary. In the absence of any considered commencement and transitional provision, all of part 2 would come into force on Royal Assent. I suspect that that is not the intention, but it would be the effect.

In relation to amendments 10, 11 and 12, tabled and spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, it appears that he is seeking to delay the Act’s measures, rather than to have them swiftly implemented. He has already tabled amendments 4, 5 and 6 to clause 41 so that all of part 2 would come into force at the same time and then become subject to the transitional provisions of clause 42. I know that he was seeking to bring clarity, but the effect of amendments 10, 11 and 12, together with amendments 4, 5 and 6, is that the measures in part 2 would not come into effect before the 2015 general election. Amendments 10, 11 and 12 would remove the transitional provision of clause 42 altogether, with the result that the part 2 provisions would come into effect only at the commencement of the next regulated period after Royal Assent, which is unlikely to be the regulated period for the 2015 general election. The Government are committed to enhancing the transparency of spending by third parties, and that includes enacting the measures within part 2 in time for the regulated period of the 2015 general election. I therefore do not consider it appropriate to delay their implementation until after the 2015 general election.

[Mr Chope]

Going back to the point about people needing to be given time to get up to speed, if clause 30 was brought in immediately on Royal Assent, it would state:

“The Secretary of State may by order vary any percentage for the time being specified”.

What is the point of not bringing that into effect on Royal Assent, because the only impact of doing so would be to give the Secretary of State the power to bring it in? Does the Secretary of State need to be brought up to speed?

[Tom Brake]

That is a challenging question, so I might need to get back to my hon. Friend shortly on it. I think that the whole issue of percentages is one that might require a response from others and measures to address it. I have heard his query and will ensure that he gets a specific response.

[Mark Durkan]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and the hon. Member for Caerphilly not to press their amendments.

[Mr Allen]

I will make a small contribution in order to make a request on behalf of those of us who have considerable respect for the opinions expressed about Northern Ireland and concern about the impact of the Bill there. I think that the Deputy Leader of the House inadvertently passed over that without responding to the pertinent points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). This takes the whole question of people intervening when there are questions of free speech to a rather more delicate and, indeed, darker level. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House has some response to the points made by my hon. Friend.

[Tom Brake]

I will respond to those points, subject to your approval, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think that would be helpful.

[Tom Brake]

I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will agree that I tend to take many interventions and make a point of trying to respond to them. To respond to his point on the impact in Northern Ireland, clearly the new definition of controlled expenditure will have an impact on the devolved Administrations. The lowered registration thresholds will also have an impact in Northern Ireland. With regard to Northern Ireland Assembly elections, the amount that a third-party organisation can spend campaigning against a named candidate is being increased from £500 to £700 through this legislation.

[Mark Durkan]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House clarify something? If there is a non-party campaign on a legislative proposal in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh National Assembly in the same calendar year as a Westminster election, will that count as being within the regulated period, and will that campaign about devolved legislative proposals count as part of controlled expenditure?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman asks a very specific and detailed question. The difficulty in answering it is the extent to which any local community campaign organised at any level would have an impact on Westminster elections. Rather than giving him an off-the-cuff response, I will ensure that he gets a detailed reply. On that point, I will conclude my remarks.

[Wayne David]

It is not the Opposition’s intention to press new clauses 2 and 3, on the basis of the commitment the Deputy Leader of the House has given to have further discussions, particularly in the House of Lords, which we hope will lead to substantive change. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26

Meaning of “controlled expenditure”

[Tom Brake]

I beg to move amendment 32, page 12, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert ‘“where—

(a) the expenses fall within Part 1 of Schedule 8A, and

‘(b) the expenditure can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success at any relevant election for—

(i) one or more particular registered parties,

(ii) one or more registered parties who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of such parties, or

(iii) candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of candidates.”’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 33

Amendment 101, page 12, leave out line 37 to line 9 on page 13 and insert—

‘“For election purposes” means activity which can reasonably be regarded as intended for the primary purpose of—

(a) promoting or procuring electoral success at any relevant election for—

(i) one or more particular registered parties;

(ii) one or more registered parties who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of such parties; or

(iii) candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of candidates.’.

Government amendments 34 to 45.

[Tom Brake]

Clause 26 sets out the test that third parties need to meet in order to incur controlled expenditure. There has been extensive comment from a number of bodies, such as charities and voluntary organisations, that the Bill will capture their ordinary campaigning activities. That was not the case. However, the Government gave an undertaking in Committee to revert to a test based on the wording of the existing legislation, which provides that controlled expenditure is only that

“which can reasonably be regarded as intended”

to promote or procure the electoral success of parties or candidates. The Government’s amendments meet that commitment.

I would like to thank the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Electoral Commission and others for the constructive discussion we have had in relation to the amendments. I accept that there is not total agreement on our amendments, but I know that the NCVO, for instance, is at least partially happy about the proposals we have come forward with.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Deputy Leader of the House will have seen the letter today from Sir Stuart Etherington of NCVO, which states:

“Simply returning to the previous form of words does not solve the problem… In our view, the assurances given by ministers on the floor of the house that charities campaigning on policy issues will not be affected have not been met”.

[Tom Brake]

I am aware of that, but I am equally aware that Karl Wilding, the NCVO’s director of public policy, said yesterday that it is partially happy about what the Government have done and that we have made some progress. [Interruption.] Yes, I accept that it is partially happy, but it is worth remembering that one of the NCVO’s other concerns, as highlighted in its letter, is the PPERA legislation, which goes back to 2000, under the previous Government. It may be pertinent to remind the Labour party what the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), said:

“In terms of the day-to-day non-campaigning part of their activity, third parties will not be caught by the provision but, if they seek to influence an election, which is the expenditure in question, our proposed arrangements are reasonable.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 41.]

That is very much our view. We are in the same place.

I know that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) is new to his position, but I am sure that he will have been told in his briefing that, in response to a request from one of my right hon. Friends, the Government undertook to ensure that we reverted to the definition applied in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That is precisely what we have done.

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

If the statutory arrangements put in place by the previous Government in the 2000 Act were satisfactory, why does the Minister wish to change them now? Can he list even one example of behaviour by third parties that has led him to believe that new legislation is needed?

[Tom Brake]

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

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

In his letter, Sir Stuart Etherington says:

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

Has he simply misunderstood the legislation?

[Tom Brake]

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

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

There is another point. Back in 2010, the Royal British Legion ran a campaign called “Time to do your bit”. There seems to be an illusion that that would not be possible under the new legislation. Can the Minister assure me that such a campaign would be possible?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. That campaign was clearly run on the basis of PPERA, which is what we are reverting to. If the Royal British Legion said, “We are endorsing a candidate who has supported our position and encourage people to vote for them,” it would be caught. [Interruption.] Of course it would be caught, because it would be procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate. If it intended doing such a thing in the 2015 general election, it could choose to register as a non-party organisation and spend £390,000 across the country running that campaign. However, I question whether the Royal British Legion would want to be in such a position.

[Stephen Twigg]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

I will give way once more, then I need to make progress.

[Stephen Twigg]

Will the Minister respond to the specific point raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about the Royal British Legion campaign? In that case, what might apply in England, Wales and Scotland would for obvious reasons not apply in Northern Ireland.

[Tom Brake]

What applies in Northern Ireland could equally apply in Scotland, England or Wales. It would all depend on whether the Royal British Legion in Northern Ireland was in some way or other promoting or procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate. If it was doing that, it could be caught. If, for instance, it was promoting or procuring the electoral support of a number of candidates because a number had endorsed its message, that would also be deducted from its spend as a third-party organisation if it was promoting the electoral success of a party or candidate. As I said, I doubt whether the Royal British Legion would want to be in the position of promoting a party or candidate. That is not what it does.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Is not the point that all the organisations that we describe in these case studies do not seek the support of one political party, but set out to win a consensus across the political divide for their cause? Therefore they should have nothing to fear.

[Tom Brake]

That is absolutely the point. I would make a stronger point. In all the conversations that I have had with charities, they have gone to great extremes to underline the fact that as charities they do not campaign for the electoral success of a party or candidate because the Charity Commission would stop their charitable status if they were seen to be campaigning politically. They do not do that, so the argument that the threshold or total national cap is being dropped or will in some way inhibit charities is not true.

Charities do not campaign for the electoral success of a party or candidate so the threshold would not apply and they would not need to keep details of controlled expenditure. [Interruption.] I find it hard to believe that the question is still being asked. Charities are not affected by the Bill because they do not campaign for electoral success.

The Government amendments meet the commitment we made in Committee, and I thank the organisations that we have worked with on the issue. We believe our amendments provide clarification and reassurance to charities, voluntary organisations, community groups and other campaigners that their normal engagement with public policy will not be subject to regulation as long as it cannot reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure the electoral success of a party or candidate.

By reverting to the existing terminology, amendment 32 achieves the aim of making the test for controlled expenditure one that has been in existence since 2000. I have seen continued comment from some organisations that the rules will prevent charities and other campaigners from making their views known. Those objections are based not on what is being done in the Bill but on the rules already set out in PPERA. Those rules have been in place for a number of elections, including the 2005 and 2010 general elections. I am sure that everyone on both sides would agree that, during those elections, charities and other campaigners were not prevented from engaging and influencing public policy.

[Stephen Twigg]

Why change it then?

[Tom Brake]

I will come to that. Others in the House will know from experience that campaigners make their views abundantly clear at election time, as they should.

In answer to the sedentary intervention from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, I should say that we are changing the controlled expenditure provisions because the Electoral Commission asked us to bring in line the controlled expenditure that applies to third- party organisations to that which applies to political parties. Do the Opposition believe that the current ability for an individual or group of organisations to spend a large amount in one parliamentary constituency is acceptable, or do they think that it should be controlled, as we do?

[Mr Harris]

The Minister made a good point in stating that the Royal British Legion would not want to be associated with any particular party or candidate. That charity is a good example of one that tries to generate consensus across the electorate.

May I ask the Minister about a different kind of campaign? The RSPCA has a well known objection to the badger cull. It is possible that, in the run-up to the 2015 election, it will run information campaigns opposing the cull. They would not be national campaigns, because they would focus on areas where the cull was happening. Such campaigns would not be for or against any particular party, but we all know what conclusion voters would draw. Would such a campaign be included in this legislation?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to judge whether that campaign would fall foul of the rules without sufficient detail about what it might constitute. It is not my position to do that; it is for the Electoral Commission. If the RSPCA ran a campaign in a number of constituencies saying, “We are against the badger cull”, and subsequently a candidate announced that they were also against it, provided that the RSPCA did not say, “Candidate A is backing our campaign—vote for candidate A”, it would be able to proceed with campaigning. [Interruption.] Someone is saying that I am not able to give a detailed answer. In fact, I am sure that in the run-up to the 2005 and 2010 elections the Electoral Commission had discussions with a number of different organisations to clarify where the boundaries lie on these issues, and it is right for it to do so.

[Angela Smith]

The Electoral Commission has made clear its view that it should enforce the rules already laid down by Parliament, not determine the rules. The Deputy Leader of the House said that it is up to the commission to decide what is permissible and what is not; surely that is not right.

[Tom Brake]

The Electoral Commission has produced guidance that the different organisations have to work within, and it will investigate any issues that are believed to have arisen. It clearly has an important role. The Government are not in a position to set out in legislation each and every possible type of campaign that the commission might have to account for. That is why it produces guidance and why—we will support it in this—it will sit down with campaigning organisations to ensure that that guidance is available for them so that they can work effectively.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I recognise that some progress has been made on the precise wording of the clause, but there remains a huge amount of uncertainty among the charities and, indeed, the Electoral Commission as to how this will work. Does the Minister recognise that that makes it very difficult for people not only to understand it but to support it?

[Tom Brake]

I do. It would be foolish of me to say that some charities are not concerned about this issue. Clearly they are, and the NCVO and others have expressed their concerns. Our role is to restate as many times as is required that, as my hon. Friend will know, charities overwhelmingly do not campaign for the electoral success of a party or candidate and therefore are not caught by our proposals. We can restate that in as much contact with charities as possible. Of course, as I think she would agree, other organisations that are clearly campaigning for the electoral success of a party or candidate should be caught by this legislation, as they are caught by the current legislation. Nothing that we are proposing changes that, apart from the things that I mentioned earlier as regards, for instance, the level of controlled expenditure that we allow.

[Dr Francis]

The theme of the Deputy Leader of the House’s remarks is that there is considerable misunderstanding out there among voluntary organisations. Would it not be reasonable and decent to provide more time for his proposals to be better understood?

[Tom Brake]

What is reasonable and appropriate is for us, as a Government, to set out very clearly our intention, which is not to stop charities campaigning on policy issues, and to restate that intention as often as is required so that charities can see what it is. That is what we will carry on doing, and I am confident that we will get the message across.

Government amendment 33 removes the additional test that expenditure might otherwise enhance the standing of a party or candidate. I hope that charities and campaigning organisations will see this as a positive step in providing them with greater clarity. Although we do not consider it to be a significant change, we recognise that this additional limb of the existing PPERA test was perhaps less clear and might have suggested a more remote connection from promoting electoral success, and we want to be clear that that is not our aim. This should provide further clarity and reassurance to campaigners as to the test they have to meet in order to incur controlled expenditure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes]

My right hon. Friend has set out all the things that should be of reassurance, which is very helpful to those in the House and, I hope, outside it. Will he repeat the assurance that he and the Leader of the House are willing, if necessary, to have a further conversation with Stuart Etherington or the commission to make sure, face to face, that what has been said is understood? A great deal of heat and noise has been generated, and at the beginning there might have been some justification for that. The Government are trying to deal with it, but it might be better dealt with by also having some further conversation to make sure that there is dialogue as opposed to just two separate statements in different places.

[Tom Brake]

I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the doors of the Leader of the House’s office and mine are permanently open to that sort of approach. In fact, the dialogue with the NCVO has been very active and constant, and I am keen to pursue that. The NCVO is, as I stated earlier, at least partially happy and has in the past said that the amendments significantly meet its concerns. There is common ground and we want to ensure that it is developed further.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Although the Deputy Leader of the House has said that this issue is clearly to do with candidates or parties, there is a slight problem with the wording of lines 1 to 4 on page 13, which note that “for election purposes” means

“for the purpose of or in connection with…candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies”.

Although this is a valuable Bill which has been widely misrepresented by 38 Degrees and others, I think that wording presents a potential risk to charities such as the one for which I used to work and campaign, in that it might restrict what they perceive to be their political activity.

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. My issue with his concern is that that terminology is used in PPERA, which has been around for 13 years. One would therefore have expected such concerns to have emerged in the past 13 years, and seeing as they have not, I am reasonably confident that they will not emerge by 2015 either.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that the Government are in listening mode on these issues. Given that Government Members often accuse Labour Members of listening too much to trade unions, I was particularly interested to hear that the Deputy Leader of the House and the Department have been listening to the TUC with regard to the annual conference, so perhaps they are not exempt from lobbying by the unions. The issue of the annual conference is obviously one for the main political parties and some of the minor political parties plus the TUC. Is there a list of defined organisations for these annual conferences?

[Tom Brake]

I am not aware of a list of defined organisations. If hon. Members look at the list of third-party organisations that registered in 2010 and 2005 they might be able to draw some conclusions about which annual conferences I have in mind.

As I have said, the Government believe that the amendments provide the clarity and reassurance that charities, voluntary organisations and the Electoral Commission have sought. We are aware that campaigners will want to understand how to comply with the provisions of the regulatory regime as amended by the Bill. Just as it has for previous elections, the independent regulator, the Electoral Commission, will develop and produce guidance to inform campaigners what expenditure it is likely to consider to be regulated or not regulated. The Government stand ready to support this work.

Amendment 101, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), seeks, along broadly similar lines to Government amendment 32, to revise the definition of “for election purposes” to be activity which can reasonably be regarded as promoting or procuring the success of a party or candidate. However, the amendment would also introduce a new primary purpose test, which the Government cannot support. Such a test would be likely to create greater regulatory uncertainty and an obvious avenue for avoidance activity that could fatally undermine these rules, which are supported in principle by the hon. Gentleman’s party.

The concerns of campaigners and the Electoral Commission on the introduction of the draft Bill was that the revised language was untested and caused uncertainty. Our purpose in reverting to the original PPERA test is to address those concerns by reintroducing a test with which the commission and campaigners are familiar, and on which the commission has existing guidance and experience. Introducing a new and untested primary purpose test would completely undermine those benefits. Rather than having the clear test of whether the expenditure can be reasonably regarded as intended to promote electoral success there would be two tests: can it be so regarded and is it also the primary purpose? The opportunity for uncertainty and legal challenge would only be increased by the following questions. What is the primary purpose of your campaign? Is it to promote the issue or to promote those who support your issue? That is an additional test which does nothing to provide the clarity that campaigners say they want.

Perhaps more damaging is the opportunity for avoidance. The primary purpose of an environmental organisation’s advertising campaign might be claimed to be to recruit new members and encourage donations, but it might also urge support for its preferred party. It may be said that the primary purpose is to protect animal welfare, but that may be done only by encouraging support for particular candidates. Those are activities that are and ought to be regulated. The primary purpose test would drive a coach and horses through the legislation. Groups carrying out these activities have previously undertaken campaigning as recognised third parties, which is perfectly appropriate: they can campaign without restrictions. Under the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, however, all could be potentially excluded from registration. The Government have responded to concerns from the Electoral Commission and other groups that the test for controlled expenditure needs to be clear. The amendment would introduce unwanted uncertainty for campaigners.

The amendment would also create a loophole in the law that third parties could use as an avenue for avoidance and that would undermine the regulatory regime. That is not just my or the Government’s view. The Electoral Commission has expressed concerns that the amendment would introduce a new subjective element test which could lead to significant regulatory difficulty. It has also stated that it does not support an exemption for charities from these rules. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.

[Stephen Twigg]

May I first put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), have led on the Bill until now? I also welcome to his post the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), whom I will be shadowing in my new role.

I have heard very little today to change the view I held before the debate started that part 2 of the Bill is little more than a gag on charities and campaigners which, as hon. Members of all parties have said, both today and during the Bill’s earlier stages, will have a chilling effect on our national political debate. Earlier my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly reminded the House that the Bill underwent no pre-legislative scrutiny, and doesn’t it show? Given that it was published just before the summer recess, it is to the particular credit of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), that it was able to give the Bill a degree of scrutiny and table a number of constructive amendments in September and today. What we are left with from the Government is a half-baked set of proposals that pose a real danger of causing more harm than good. It is clear from the widespread concerns raised by charities and campaigning organisations that the lack of consultation and full scrutiny will limit their activities in practice—not in furthering political objectives, but simply in meeting their own charitable objectives.

I listened very carefully to the Deputy Leader of the House’s speeches on this and the previous group of amendments. Nothing that he said has changed the sense I had in preparing for today’s debate that part 2 is a solution in search of a problem.

As the Minister has rightly reminded us, the previous Labour Government introduced a cap on third-party spending, because we do not want to go down the American route of unaccountable organisations spending vast sums of money. We introduced the cap and have no objection to a tough cap on third-party spending. However, the big money in British politics is not third-party spending but spending by the political parties. At the last election, political parties spent 10 times more than third parties. If the Government were serious—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House heckles me from a sedentary position—I cannot quite hear what he is saying—but if he and the Conservative party in particular are serious, why do they not confront their reliance on a tiny number of wealthy donors from the City of London? There is nothing on that in the Bill, which is supposedly about getting the big money out of politics.

In the 2010 general election, political parties nationally spent £31 million; third-party campaigners spent £3 million. The biggest third-party expenditure was 4% of the £17 million spent by the Conservative party, which spent the same as all the other parties and all the third parties added together. Let us be clear: if the Government were serious about taking big money out of politics, they would consider ideas such as a reduction in the overall expenditure cap for political parties during election years and the introduction of a £5,000 cap on donations to political parties.

[Tom Brake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Twigg]

I will give way when I have made this point. This Government—[Interruption.] Do I get a permanent commentary on my speeches from the Leader of the House? I will get used to it. The Government have wasted an opportunity to tackle the real problem of big money in politics, and thereby ripped up a cross-party approach to party political funding.

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman will know that no agreement has been reached on party funding, but the Liberal Democrats would clearly welcome one. The Committee on Standards in Public Life has said that the overall controlled expenditure cap is generous, but does the Labour party believe that it should be reduced or that it is set at the right level?

[Stephen Twigg]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that one risk is that the Bill will result in litigation and a shift in the use of moneys that charities would otherwise use to fulfil their charitable objectives. However, I think that the situation might be worse. As I have said, nothing that I have heard today has changed my view, which has been expressed by other Labour Front Benchers, that many organisations will be gagged because they will simply stop their campaigning work owing to their fears about the legislation. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House can shake their heads, but that is what organisations fear. That is deeply unhealthy for our democracy.

In conclusion, will the Government amendments mean that issue-based campaigning will be excluded from the regulations? From Ros Baston and other lawyers it is an unequivocal “no”. Secondly, and crucial to today’s discussion, will the amendments make any significant changes to the categories of activities to be covered by regulation? Ros Baston finds that the changes will not improve the clarity of proposed regulation, and indeed are likely to result in new uncertainties. In other words, instead of making progress, the Government amendments risk making a bad situation even worse.

We have already heard about the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which the Deputy Leader of the House said was partially happy. I invite colleagues to read the letter, dated today, from Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the NCVO. He states:

“The Leader of the House suggests that at both the 2005 and 2010 election this wording has not prevented charities and voluntary organisations from campaigning and influencing policy…The Leader misses an important point. At previous elections the definition of controlled expenditure only applied to ‘election material’ (a much narrower category of activity) and expenditure thresholds were set at reasonable and workable levels. The Bill in its current form has significantly expanded the list of activities, and considerably lowered the threshold. The overall effect will therefore be that more charities and voluntary organisations will be subject to the enhanced and much more onerous rules.”

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid that the phrase I have repeated many times will get repeated again. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that charities and voluntary organisations do not campaign for the electoral success of a party or candidates, and therefore will not be caught by controlled expenditure?

[Stephen Twigg]

If that is the case, why are we having this conversation and debate? If there is no issue, why have the Government brought this Bill before the House, unless there is something about which they are concerned?

As others have said, there is a real risk of a chilling effect on our national debate given the timing and rush of this Bill. The Minister has acknowledged that the Government are in a rush to get the legislation in place for the 2015 general election, and inevitably people will think that they are trying to insulate their own record, MPs and candidates from legitimate democratic criticism. A number of high-profile campaigns could have been stymied by the legislation, such as that run by the National Union of Students in 2010 on tuition fees, the equal marriage campaign by Stonewall, or, as many Members have said, the Royal British Legion military covenant campaign.

At a time when trust in politics is at an all-time low, why are the Government bringing forward a measure that could restrict the one part of our politics that is doing a good job of engaging people? As well as having a chilling effect on debate, the Bill could also allow this Government, and future Governments, to escape scrutiny on their record and policies. To pluck an example of interest to the Liberal Democrats, might it stop the National Union of Students from holding them to account for how they voted on tuition fees, stop organisations such as the excellent Family and Childcare Trust from highlighting how the Government have driven up the cost of child care for working families, or stop the Royal College of Nursing from warning the public about the impact of Government health policies?

The Royal British Legion was mentioned earlier in the debate, and its circular makes an incredibly powerful case about the weakness of the Government amendment. The Royal British Legion remains

“unconvinced that legitimate awareness-raising activities won’t be captured by the revised definition”.

The Electoral Commission’s own briefing confirms those concerns:

“activity does not have to be ‘party political’ for its costs to be regulated.”

Is it really the Government’s intention for the excellent work of organisations such as the Royal British Legion to be curtailed because of this hastily thrown together Bill? Surely it is not. Had they undertaken proper pre-legislative scrutiny—a case made powerfully by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee—they would have discovered the problems that this clause and this part of the Bill will create.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harris]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that concern. It occurs to me that, no matter how complicated a problem is, it will be a lot more complicated when we introduce talk of any of the devolved Administrations.

I want to offer one more important example that has been raised previously with the Minister. The National Union of Students might arrive in his constituency in the year running up to May 2015 with a leaflet saying, “Here is a photograph of your MP, Tom Brake, signing a pledge not to vote in any circumstances for increased tuition fees. This is what he said, and this is how he voted.” Will he confirm—yes or no—whether that campaign or that union would fall foul of the spending limits and the sanctions in the Bill? That is a reasonable question, and it is reasonable to ask the Minister to say, one way or another, whether that is the case.

At the last general election, I attended a number of hustings. At the very end of one that was organised by a church—a charitable organisation—it was announced that the candidates present would be asked to sign a public pledge and that a photograph of the candidates signing the pledge would be subsequently distributed to voters. The pledge was to campaign to allow asylum seekers to get work legally. I said, “No, I don’t believe in that policy,” and had to walk off the stage and allow the other candidates to have their photograph taken, which would have had an effect on the voting intentions of certain groups of people in my constituency. A charitable organisation was distributing information that had an effect on my election. Will the Minister say whether that, in his opinion, according to the legislation, will fall foul of the limits and sanctions in the Bill?

Those are important questions. If the Minister can answer them one way or the other, he would help a great deal in reassuring members of civic society and the heads of charities on whether their activities in the run-up to the next general election will, after all, be perfectly legal and not subject to sanctions.

[Tom Brake]

With the leave of the House, Mr Speaker, I should like to respond to a couple of points.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said that we need to address party funding. I agree with him. The Government offered the Labour party an opportunity in the Bill to address trade union funding, which the leader of the Labour party wants to address. I regret that that offer was not taken up.

The hon. Gentleman referred extensively to legal advice —he said that that was not the entirety of his speech, although it did feel that way. One point he did make was that, because of the Bill, organisations must consult to see whether what they propose to do is acceptable. However, they must do exactly that under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—there will be circumstances in which organisations will want to check whether what they do is within the rules. There is no change in that respect.

I was hoping to hear from the hon. Gentleman something about what the Opposition believe. We have heard that they support the measure in principle, but, contrary to what he has said, we did not hear whether they believe that the cap is appropriate or that there is a need for a constituency limit, or whether they support the extension of controlled expenditure to other items, which the Electoral Commission has asked us to do.

The hon. Gentleman went on to explain that he would support amendment 101. The Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee said that although he wanted that amendment to be passed, he did not really want it to be in the Bill in practice. That was an unusual position to adopt.

[Mr Allen]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Brake]

I will not give way because I have only one minute to complete my remarks.

[Mr Allen]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House inadvertently about the words that I used and my intent. I would be happy to see amendment 101 in the Bill. However, I feel that there is sufficient time for the Government—even this Government—to improve the wording. I do not claim that it is perfect. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who has conducted the debate quite civilly to date, will not misrepresent me again.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point, to which there is no requirement for a reply. The Deputy Leader of the House may continue with his advocacy.

[Tom Brake]

I have noted the hon. Gentleman’s point. The Opposition spokesman said that he would support amendment 101. Personally, I think that it should be put into room 101.

The hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) supported what the Government are doing, which I welcome. He said that he would not support the loss of freedom of speech and nor would I or anybody else on the Front Bench. This is a good opportunity to remind people that this Government have got rid of ID cards, stopped the retention of the DNA of innocent people, got rid of internal exile and reduced the pre-charge detention period from 28 to 14 days. We will take no lectures on civil liberties from the Opposition.

The Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee explained the he is the trustee of a charity. I congratulate him on that. He said that he would advise his charity not to campaign on policy issues. I hope that that is not the case. We are talking about the PPERA legislation from 2005 and 2010. I assume that he did not advise his charity not to campaign on policy issues in 2005 and 2010, so I hope that he will not give it that advice now.

[Mr Allen]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid that I am due to complete my remarks. I am happy to discuss the hon. Gentleman’s point of view with him later.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) rightly highlighted the risk of having a subjective test. He pointed out what part 2 is about, which has been rather lost in this debate. It is about preventing organisations such as the National Rifle Association from playing a major part in elections in this country.

There were a number of other contributions. The Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights said that the Bill may well have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and assembly, and he called for a democratic pause. We will certainly consider his Committee’s report and we can work with the timetable that he set out for its publication. However, as I said in response to a similar intervention, we intend to move forward with the proposals.

The hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) expressed support for amendment 101, which the Government oppose adamantly.

Finally, the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) asked me again to comment on a number of theoretical campaigns, without providing the detail that I or anybody else would need to judge whether they would constitute promoting or procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate. I am therefore clearly not in a position to comment.

I have listened carefully to what the Opposition have said, but I will press the Government amendments.

Amendment 32 agreed to.

Amendment made: 33, page 12, line 34, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

‘( ) Omit subsection (3).’.—(Tom Brake.)

Amendment proposed: 101, page 12, leave out line 37 to line 9 on page 13 and insert—

‘“For election purposes” means activity which can reasonably be regarded as intended for the primary purpose of—

(a) promoting or procuring electoral success at any relevant election for—

(i) one or more particular registered parties;

(ii) one or more registered parties who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of such parties; or

(iii) candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of candidates.’. —(Mr Allen.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

The hon. Lady makes a clear and succinct point. The sad fact is that this provision is a mystery; clause 27 has no antecedents and no pedigree, and we are not sure why it is in the Bill. Nobody has asked for a reduction in the interaction. Many colleagues throughout the House want a greater interaction—dare I cite the Prime Minister talking about the big society? I welcomed those words, because I would like to see that. This provision does not welcome the big society; it shrinks the big society to a slightly smaller big society that feels unloved, chilled, unable to get its point of view over and unable to articulate the things that drive it to be in existence.

My reason for moving amendment 102 and asking colleagues in all parts of the House to support it is, again, to send a signal to the Government that they should think again on the issue—this is not the end of the process. They should go away, take good advice, perhaps even listen to this House and perhaps even set up an arrangement whereby further evidence can be taken. My Committee, which is all-party, and its unanimous report might be able to help in that, and we are keen to find a way forward that arrives at a consensus. The only way in which we will get that pause, and get the Government to have another think and a little more of a listen to all the people who are writing to us today on this issue—people whose credentials are unimpeachable—is by voting down clause 27 tonight. The only way to do that is to support amendment 102 and I urge all colleagues to do so.

[Tom Brake]

Third parties may campaign in a relevant election up to a particular threshold without being subject to any electoral controls or restrictions on their activities. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 sets the threshold for third parties campaigning in England at £10,000, and at £5,000 for third parties campaigning in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Third parties may exceed these thresholds only if they register with the Electoral Commission as “recognised third parties”. They are then permitted to incur “controlled expenditure”, as it is defined by clause 26 of this Bill

Upon registration, third parties also become subject to spending and donations controls for the duration of the regulated period of the relevant election. The Bill’s intention is to ensure greater transparency of campaign finance, and so provides that a third party must register with the Electoral Commission as a “recognised third party” if it wishes to spend more than the revised threshold in the Bill—£5,000 in England or £2,000 in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. That will have the effect that more third parties will account for their expenditure and provide details of the donations they receive. It is not clear to me what the Opposition’s concerns about this provision are. It is about providing more transparency so that people can see who is campaigning locally in support of a party or candidates.

[Lady Hermon]

What is the reasoning for halving the expenditure threshold from £10,000 to £5,000 in England but more than halving the threshold in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Our threshold has been reduced from £5,000 to £2,000. Unless my maths escapes me, our figure is less than half what it was. What is the justification for doing that?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. The reason is simply that the Government wanted to arrive at some straightforward figures—£5,000 and £2,000 in the respective nations—and we felt that given the size of those nations, spending £2,000 had a significant impact on the election campaign. Therefore, from a transparency point of view, we felt this was important to allow people to see who was actively campaigning in support of a party or candidates.

[Mark Durkan]

The Deputy Leader of the House says that the Government wanted a figure that was straightforward. Were the existing figures not straightforward enough? Who has been running rings around them? What has been the ambit of the abuse that the Government are trying to deal with? What problem has been solved? Problems have been created, but the Deputy Leader of the House has not told us what problem is being solved.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the Deputy Leader of the House responds, I ought to emphasise what should be apparent to everybody—namely, that we are operating under very tight time constraints. There are amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) about which he might wish, perfectly reasonably, to speak and others also wish to contribute. A degree of self-discipline is now imperative.

[Tom Brake]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. The answer to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is that the provision is about transparency and making people aware of a wider range of organisations that are campaigning in constituencies up and down the country in support of a party or candidate.

Once a third party has registered with the Electoral Commission it may then only incur controlled expenditure to a maximum spending limit, which is currently set at approximately 5% of the potential party spend. That amounts to just under £1 million—£988,000—across the UK. Evidence from recent elections shows that the third-party spending limit for UK parliamentary elections, which applies separately for each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is so high that third parties are effectively unrestricted in their level of spending. That renders the limit ineffective as a spending control.

As Members will be aware, clause 27 lowers the spending limits for the purposes of UK parliamentary elections to 2% of the maximum campaign expenditure limit that applies to political parties campaigning in UK parliamentary elections. That is equivalent to £319,800 in England, £35,400 in Scotland, £24,000 in Wales and £10,800 in Northern Ireland. The Bill lowers the thresholds to increase transparency by identifying third parties that campaign in the political process, and I should have thought that Opposition Members would support that. Amendment 59 would amend clause 27 so that it no longer does that.

It is right to distinguish which organisations incur expenditure campaigning at elections and to ensure their funds are fully accounted for, but we recognise that there is a balance to be struck between transparency and placing regulatory requirements on third parties. We also need to take account of the spending limit in constituencies, to which I shall come shortly.

Amendment 60 proposes that until the Electoral Commission has undertaken an assessment of the impact of clause 27 on both political parties and third parties, and until that report is laid before Parliament, the provisions of clause 27 may not come into effect. A few hours ago, we had a lengthy debate on the impact assessments that the Government has carried out and that we would expect the Electoral Commission, as part of its normal duties, to conduct after the legislation is implemented and elections have taken place.

At the last general election, the largest 10% of third parties spent more than the remaining 90% put together. We are seeking a level playing field for the different third parties that might oppose each other in the course of an election campaign. It is worth noting that only two organisations spent more than the new lowered limits proposed in the Bill—Unison and Vote for a Change. That demonstrates that the spending limit is so high as to be ineffectual in creating the level playing field that spending limits seek to provide.

Clause 28 sets the constituency limits and the Government have been put on the spot and asked why we want to reduce the national spending cap. Third parties must comply with particular spending limits according to whether they are campaigning in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Under the provisions of the Bill, they may spend up to an aggregate £390,000 campaigning in a UK parliamentary election, a figure that we think allows third parties to campaign vigorously nationally but that also provides a greater degree of control over spending to ensure that big money does not seek to play a part in influencing the outcome of elections, particularly in a limited number of constituencies, distorting the electoral process. A third party could, however, choose to direct the entire national spending limit at only a small part of the UK. Again it is not clear whether the Opposition are comfortable with the current situation, where that is possible, or whether they would like to see change. Our view is that we do not want disproportionately large amounts of money to be focused on a limited number of seats. In other circumstances, that is the argument that the Opposition would put to us today if we were not taking the action that we are taking.

Clause 28 therefore introduces an entirely new provision whereby third parties will be permitted to spend only up to a certain proportion of their controlled expenditure in individual constituencies. Subsection (6) limits this per constituency spending to 0.05% of the maximum campaign expenditure limits applied to political parties, which amounts to £9,750. This limit applies for the duration of the regulated period for a UK parliamentary general election.

[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)—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say very gently to the Deputy Leader of the House, to whose contribution I am listening with my usual interest and respect, that I know that he will want the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) to be able to speak from the Opposition Front Bench, as well as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I therefore confidently anticipate that the right hon. Gentleman is approaching the conclusion of his oration.

[Tom Brake]

Indeed, I will do so.

Under subsection (6), only a proportion of the expenditure—£5,850—may be incurred during the period between the dissolution of Parliament and the date of poll. Third parties campaigning for or against a particular candidate or candidates already need to think carefully about their spending to ensure that they stay on the right side of the separate, existing rules on candidate expenditure in the Representation of the People Act 1983. Third parties clearly campaigning for or against a particular candidate or candidates may spend only up £500 doing so. Besides raising this amount to £800 through clause 34, the Bill does not otherwise affect those provisions.

There are many other amendments that I would have liked to have an opportunity to discuss today, but the Government can support none of the amendments in this group. I hope therefore that Members will seek to withdraw them.

[Mr Speaker]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I wish to make a few brief comments. First, I say to the hon. Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) that the problem with someone dusting down their Second Reading speech is that they miss changes made to the Bill in the interim. I would, however, like to thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. I appreciate that organisations from all walks of life have expressed views—sometimes strong views—about the Bill, and I am grateful that so many have taken the time to share them.

The Bill is about transparency and giving the public confidence in our political system. I am sure that no Member would disagree that we must ensure that all those who impact on our democracy do so transparently, accountably and fairly—these measures will do that. This debate has covered a wide range of viewpoints. There is not time to address every point that has been raised, but I will quickly recap what this Bill will do, as that should address points raised. It will introduce a statutory register of consultant lobbyists to complement our existing transparency regime; it will fill a specific gap where it is not certain on whose behalf consultant lobbyists are lobbying; it will ensure that third parties campaigning at elections do so in a fully transparent manner; and it will give the public reassurance that trade unions which influence public life beyond their own members know who those members are. The Bill will bring greater transparency to our political system, as we promised to do, and I therefore commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

I beg to move,

That the Order of 3 September 2013 (Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill: Programme) be varied as follows:

Proceedings on Consideration

For paragraph (6) substitute–

“(6) Proceedings on Consideration–

(a) shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown, and

(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

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

Tom Brake Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I shall respond to my hon. Friend’s intervention in a moment. I want my speech to reflect what has been said in the debate so far, and the point that he has made has already begun to emerge during our discussion of clause 36 and the amendments.

Another point has emerged as well, and it constitutes a direct challenge to Ministers. The face of the Bill bears the following declaration from the Leader of the House:

“In my view the provisions of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.”

Members of Parliament and legal experts outside the House have rightly asked whether article 8 of the convention, in particular, is not confounded by the provisions of clause 36. The clause gives the certification officer, or any investigator whom he may appoint, sweeping powers of access to very personal individual information about trade union members, which could contravene article 8 and the right to privacy. As I think the Committee will appreciate, union members are rightly concerned and sensitive about the issue, given the recent history of blacklisting and discrimination on the basis of trade union membership or activity. What I should like the Minister to do when he responds to the debate—

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

She.

[John Healey]

What I should like the Minister to do when she responds to the debate is give the Committee a commitment that she will publish, or place in the Library of the House, the legal advice on which the Leader of the House’s statement on the front of the Bill is based, so that we can lay that concern to rest.

Let me now turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) asked what was the problem with which clause 36, and part 3 as a whole, had been designed to deal. Even the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) rightly asked the same question, albeit in different terms. He asked what intention was behind the provisions in clause 36. Our debate so far has clearly shown that there is no evidence of a problem, that there is no public call for these changes, and that there is no principled case for them. We can only conclude that the intention, or the purpose, of the clause is to tighten the legislative leash on trade unions and their ability to take proper, lawful industrial action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Sheridan.

I intend to focus on clause 36 stand part. Let me begin by putting it on the record—in case anyone thinks that I am trying to hide it—that I am very much part of the trade union movement. I am a former national president of Unison, and a honorary life member of that union; I am a member of the Communication Workers Union, and a former proud member of the National Union of Mineworkers; and I was a member of the General Council of the TUC for six years. So I think that I may just have a little bit of an idea of what we are talking about, whereas other Members who are in the Chamber may not.

I was actively involved in the trade union movement for 40 years, and during that time I challenged very drastically some of the legislation that has been referred to today, including the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which the trade unions described at the time as a scabs’ charter. That was exactly what it was there for. It was there to help people to take on and undermine their own trade unions. It was a deliberate attempt by the Conservative party to undermine trade union legislation and trade union activity, and exactly the same thing is happening today. This Bill is part and parcel of that legislation. [Interruption.] It looks as though the Minister wants to intervene.

[Tom Brake]

I was just speculating on when the hon. Gentleman would actually refer to clause 36, given the absence of any reference to it so far. However, I am sure that the Chairman will intervene when he thinks that the hon. Gentleman is not addressing the issue.

[The Temporary Chairman (Jim Sheridan)]

The Chair will decide what is in order.