Oral Answers to Questions

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister is offering serious thoughts in a cerebral manner on a very important topic, the National Citizen Service. I think he deserves a more attentive audience.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Given the surge in voter registration, how can the Minister possibly justify using such woefully inaccurate figures to redraw the electoral map of the United Kingdom?

[Matthew Hancock]

We just had this question a few minutes ago, and the answer is very clear: the alternative of using figures from 2001 or 2000 is completely unacceptable. We have, in fact, made the process more frequent, not less, and we now update the register for the purposes of writing the boundaries every five years, not every 10.

Voter Registration

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

There has been a huge amount of support and communication, both on social media and more broadly, from the wide array of people I referred to in my statement. I encourage all those who have spent the past few days explaining to people that they have to register to vote, to get out there and encourage people to register to vote now—today—knowing that we are doing all that we can to make sure that those registrations will allow people to vote on 23 June. Huge numbers of people have been out there on social media doing that already, so I say to them: get out there again now and spread the word.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

The Minister must surely accept that the surge in applications to vote reflects not just the interest in the referendum but the number of people who have, in effect, been disfranchised. Why is he content for the boundary review to go ahead on false figures, and why will he not make a commitment to the House today that the Boundary Commission will work on accurate figures rather than the dodgy statistics that we have seen previously?

[Matthew Hancock]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The boundary review has to operate from an electoral roll on an agreed date. That date was agreed by this House. In the past, the review operated on a 10-year cycle, and the electoral roll was therefore 10 years out of date by the time it was reviewed. We are now moving to five-year cycles, so we have brought in more frequent use of electoral roll data by the boundary review. If we could not have a drop-dead date we could not have a boundary review at all.

Panama Papers

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful for what my hon. Friend says. I think there is a point at which you have to say that I have published the information that I think is relevant—I have gone back over the last six years —and that is the limit of what I am going to release. Some people say, “Well, what about your wife’s tax return and your mother’s financial affairs?” I really think that there comes a time when we should say that we have a register of Members’ interests. Prime Ministers and Chancellors and Opposition leaders and shadow Chancellors have done more than that, and we should rely on the register of Members’ interests to police the rest of our affairs.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Given that more than half of the companies implicated in the Panama leaks are registered in UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies, does the Prime Minister regret telling this House in 2013:

“I do not think it is fair any longer to refer to any of the overseas territories or Crown dependencies as tax havens”?—[Official Report, 9 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 700.]

Could he try to rebuild some of the public trust he has lost in the last week by making sure that, particularly in terms of publishing information about beneficial ownership, Crown dependencies and overseas territories follow the UK’s example, and will he take concrete action by putting that at the centre of his own anti-corruption summit next month?

[The Prime Minister]

The reason why I made that statement in 2013 was that we had got the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories, for the first time, to share automatically tax information with the United Kingdom Government. That is something that did not happen under the last Labour Government. It is something that we achieved. It was a different approach. Now—the hon. Gentleman is right—we want to go further, and the announcement today set out that not only will they share that information and follow the common reporting standard, but they will give us access to their information about beneficial ownership.

Just so the hon. Gentleman knows how different things were under the last Government, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in response to questions about the overseas territories, said this:

“The negotiation of tax information exchange agreements with other jurisdictions, including the UK, is essentially a matter for the Crown Dependencies themselves.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2009; Vol. 492, c. 1370W.]

He was saying, “Nothing to do with me, guv; it’s up to them.” That is the Government that we replaced. We took a different approach, and we have made a lot of progress.

European Council

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We introduced a sovereignty clause in the referendum provisions of the European Union Act 2011, and I am looking at enhancing that and adding it to the proposals that will come forward.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Given that so many of my constituents work in the City of London, I welcome what the Prime Minister has said about making sure that we have a strong global financial centre that enjoys all the benefits of access to the largest single market. Given that, may I offer the Prime Minister a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to campaign in my constituency on this issue? Given that there are those in Frankfurt and Dublin who would love to get their hands on Britain’s financial services, and that the Mayor of London has given up his day job to think about his next job, may I also ask the Prime Minister to send a very clear message to my constituents and all Londoners that London is stronger in Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

I would be delighted to come to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and to case the joint for the future. He is right. It is interesting that Chris Cummings, the chief executive of TheCityUK, has said:

“The City is Europe’s financial centre and the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU) is of strategic importance to the financial and related professional services industry. Business opinion both within and beyond our industry is that continuing membership is important to Britain’s competitiveness”.

Business organisations covering finance, insurance, manufacturing and engineering are all making their views clear, and I think we should listen to them.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anna Turley]

It is quite clear that the charitable sector felt that the 2014 Act prevented them from being able to pursue exactly the aims that the hon. Lady sets out. We in this House share many things in common with the charitable sector, not least the effort to build a better society, so it is absolutely right that we should work together in partnership to build better policy making and to shape the kind of society that she cares about. Our new clause has not come out of thin air. We are reacting to a very bad piece of legislation, about which the sector feels extremely strongly. We want to continue to protect the sector.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Part of the problem is the use of the word “political”. Before the introduction of the gagging law, there was no provision for charities to engage in party political activity—activity in favour of a political party—and CC9, the Charity Commission’s guidance document on campaigning for charities, is clear about that. What problem does my hon. Friend think the Government were trying to solve when they introduced the gagging law? I do not think there was any such problem.

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think the problem was that the Government felt challenged. From the outside, they were happy to talk about being the most open and transparent Government ever, but once in power, they pulled up the drawbridge and were nervous about the challenge they faced from the sector on key issues such as badgers and the bedroom tax.

--- Later in debate ---

I apologise for detaining the House, but I thought it important to put on the record the concerns of charities involved in the criminal justice sector and the reform and rehabilitation of offenders. I invite the Minister to extend the consultation period at least to 12 months and to have further meetings with the charities so that these glitches can be ironed out. Mr William Shawcross, the chairman of the Charity Commission, kindly telephoned me yesterday and offered the hand of friendship. He made himself and his staff available to me and those for whom I speak today. So avenues are open: the Minister has already been very open to me, and Mr Shawcross has now been very open to me. I hope, therefore, in the spirit of co-operation, that the Minister can give me reassurances so that I can tell Unlock and the Prison Reform Trust that the Government are a listening and thinking Government who want to produce a Bill that works in the long term and which we can collectively design for the public benefit.

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful for the opportunity to reaffirm some of the concerns expressed in Committee that have not been addressed, but which will be addressed by the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley).

I have had a long association with several different charities in a professional context, as a member of staff, as a volunteer and as a donor, whether through a regular standing order or money in the tin. Going back to earlier comments, I think that people know what they are signing up to when they support charities, whether it is a charity’s campaigning effectiveness or its direct work with beneficiaries. We ought to pay tribute to the remarkable work that our large and diverse voluntary sector does, from the largest to the smallest of charities.

In my constituency, we have a variety, from Barnardo’s, headquartered in Barkingside, through to smaller branches, such as the Barkingside branch of the Royal British Legion. There are also other charities such as Hopes and Dreams, set up by volunteers to help children with life-threatening or life-limiting conditions to enjoy experiences that enrich their lives at a difficult moment for them and their families. These are remarkable people doing remarkable work.

It is disappointing, therefore, that the voluntary sector, particularly in recent times, has been in the headlines for the wrong reasons and for what I would describe as the misdemeanours of the few, however large and significant they might be. It is also disappointing to hear the unnecessary condemnation of far too many. Hon. Members and others in the media have used intemperate language to bash a charity sector that does a remarkable amount of good and which should be cherished and celebrated, not derided and denigrated.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, I am concerned that the warnings mechanism in the Bill does not carry a right of appeal. When I was a chief executive of a charity, had I received a warning from the Charity Commission for any aspect of our work, I would have taken it very seriously, and I would have expected trustees to take it very seriously too, yet we have heard in Committee and on Report today that the commission may issue warnings for what are relatively minor infringements—I even hesitate to use the word “offences” —of guidance. There is a difference between best practice and regulation. Of course, we expect charities to uphold the letter of the law, but there is also a great deal of best practice out there, and we should not necessarily be slapping warnings on charities for falling short of best practice, when a more informal route might result in a better outcome.

I particularly welcome the new clause dealing with the disposal of assets. In Committee, we talked about the origins of the Government’s proposals around what might be described as the disposal of assets. We were talking about the seizure of assets, particularly in relation to their proposals for housing associations and right to buy. I am happy that housing associations and the Government are moving forward on the basis of agreement, but we should be in no doubt about how the Government reached that position: not through negotiation or evidence-based argument, but through threats, bullying and the cajoling of housing associations, with the threat that if they did not comply and work with the Government on right to buy, the latter would simply legislate for it. To me, that seems to go against the very essence of the Charitable Uses Act—sometimes referred to as Elizabeth’s law—which was referred to earlier. Indeed, I must apologise to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field): it was, in fact, an Act of 1601, and I would not want people to review the record and find that they were inadvertently misled on this issue.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

Is the hon. Gentleman angling for an invitation to the Market Harborough Conservative club?

[Wes Streeting]

What a kind invitation. Were the Conservative majority in Harborough slightly more marginal, I would be happy to visit on many occasions, but will have to pass this time and focus on matters closer to home and my majority.

Going back to the Charitable Uses Act of 1601, there is a long established principle that donations, bequests and legacies given to charities really ought to be used for the purpose that their donors intended. What my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar has set out in new clause 2 would give people the confidence that they could donate to charities or leave bequests to them knowing full well that independent charities would not be compelled

“to use or dispose of their assets in a way which is inconsistent with their charitable purposes.”

I therefore strongly endorse new clause 2, and I am glad she has tabled it for discussion this afternoon.

The final area I want to focus on is campaigning. As someone who has been a charity campaigner—both professionally and through my voluntary contributions to the work of charities—this is an issue I feel strongly about. As I said in my earlier intervention, I am still at a loss to understand the problem that the gagging law was trying to solve, because Charity Commission guidance has always been clear that charities cannot campaign for party political purposes and certainly cannot use charitable funds for the purposes of party political campaigning. It would therefore be completely unlawful for a charity to say around a general election, “We completely disagree with the Conservative party’s policy on x, and would therefore encourage you to vote for one of the other parties,” or, “The Labour party policy on y is inconsistent with the views of the charity, and therefore you should vote for another political party.”

What has always been perfectly in order and, I would argue, desirable is for charities to be an effective voice for civil society and to ensure when policy is up for debate, whether during our deliberations in this House, in one of the devolved Parliaments or Assembly, or in local authorities up and down the country, that they can draw on their wisdom and experience, and the evidence base they gather—through desk research, commissioned research or, more often than not, their direct experience of working with their beneficiaries—to make sure that decision makers are well informed.

That is a real benefit to our democracy, and I am afraid that the cries from those on the Government Benches—that this change has not had a chilling effect—are simply untrue and unfounded. Whereas the Conservative party is usually found in this Chamber arguing against red tape, the gagging law has had completely the opposite effect. Indeed, I am aware of campaigners and finance officers in charities having to sit there with their spreadsheets prior to the last general election and try to calculate whether something would be a constituency spend or a national spend, whether a collaboration with other charity partners would be workable within the law or where spending would be apportioned. I am afraid that the gagging law has imposed real and unnecessary burdens on charities. If people are concerned about how charities are spending their money, they should certainly be more concerned about the amount of time and money they might spend complying with unnecessary Government regulation than they should ever be concerned about whether they are sending briefings to Members of Parliament or asking parliamentary candidates to sign up to specific pledges or causes.

It really sticks in the throat that lots of Members of Parliament are very happy to turn up to photo ops at their party conferences or out in their constituencies with the Guide Dogs or children at a local youth club, or to go along and see all the great work an animal rights charity does—they are happy to issue press releases and enjoy the photographs—but when those charities come back to talk about the impact of their voting record or public policy they have supported or might consider supporting, suddenly this is considered a huge inconvenience or, even worse, people want to argue that it is illegal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I can only think that the Minister has not been listening to the debate this afternoon or in Committee. He is, once again, deliberately muddying the waters between legitimate campaigning and party political activity. Is the Minister not trying to defend a pattern of Government behaviour of clamping down on any scrutiny or opposition, whether in this place, the House of Lords, the charities sector or the trade unions?

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is their full purpose, and they should feel entirely able to stand up and challenge the Government of the day, whoever they may be, and any political party if they feel that their policy does not support their charitable objectives.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Some of the remarks made this morning do a disservice to many Conservative councillors and Members of Parliament. I can even think of Government special advisers with whom I have worked in the voluntary sector as paid staff, and they all did a very good job in the voluntary sector and are doing reasonably well in government.

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he is right to pay that tribute. There is often a political motivation behind such proposals that resents the fact that a party, once it is in power, has to accept that people will challenge it and hold it to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

This is not about party politicking. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that an organisation such as Shelter should simply stick to providing advice to Members and not seek to challenge the Government and politicians of all sides, holding them to account? That is what we are seeking to protect.

The Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement also found that voluntary groups embroiled in Government contracts regularly face threats to remain silent on key Government policies. Many neglect to speak out on issues plaguing society for fear of losing funding or inviting other unwelcome sanctions. The health of our democracy depends on people’s right to campaign on the issues they care about. The lobbying Act was an attack on our democracy. It hits charities and campaigners and limits their right to fight for important causes while allowing professional lobbies to escape scrutiny. It has left expert organisations that have a vital contribution to make to public debate unsure whether they are allowed to speak out. Governments should not be afraid of criticism or lively debate. As the old saying goes, politics is too important to leave to politicians. We seek to protect this right of charities to have a loud and respected voice in our democracy. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

[Wes Streeting]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton. I add my voice to those congratulating you on your new role in the shadow foreign affairs team. I am sure your experience will be greatly appreciated throughout the whole House.

I confess to feeling some responsibility for this discussion. The question we should always ask when debating any potential law is: what is the problem we are trying to fix? I understand the problem the new clause is trying to address. It is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar described, the chilling effect that was undoubtedly caused by the gagging law passed by the previous Parliament. I will talk about that chilling effect shortly, but it is worth remembering why that gagging law was passed in the first place. It was, of course, because some very foolish Liberal Democrat MPs and a few Conservatives made the decision prior to the 2010 general election to sign a pledge in a Committee Room down the corridor with me, as president of the National Union of Students, that clearly stated, “I will vote against any increase in tuition fees and will campaign for a fairer funding system.”

The irony was that, prior to the general election, I was hauled in by members of the Liberal Democrat party leadership, who subsequently joined the Cabinet, to explain why the NUS had gone so soft and was not demanding abolition of all fees in line with Liberal Democrat policy. That would have been laughable in itself, given subsequent events, were it not for the fact that previously, as leader of the NUS, I was dragged up to a particularly dreary Liberal Democrat spring conference at Harrogate expecting to endorse its new graduate tax policy as the “Labour” president of the NUS. Of course, it was never a party political role—[Laughter]—but nevertheless, there I was, ready to endorse the Liberal Democrat graduate tax policy, which never came to fruition.

That is an important example because, even as president of the National Union of Students, which is arguably one of the most small “p” political charities where candidates stand on political tickets—I was elected as a Labour president of the NUS—there was never any doubt in my mind about who I was accountable to and who I served. I was elected first and foremost—in fact, only—to serve students. If that meant going up to a wet and windy Liberal Democrat spring conference to stand alongside its leader and endorse a policy that, sadly, did not come to pass, I was prepared to do it.

In the same way, I told Lord Mandelson, when he was Business Secretary, that unless there was student representation on the Browne review, he would find me and 100 other student union presidents outside the Business Department holding up signs saying, “Students let down by Labour”. The point is that, whoever is in government, if sometimes they take decisions that impact on beneficiaries or communities that we serve under the auspices of our charitable objectives, we must have the muscle to hold their feet to the fire.

That happens today to Labour politicians up and down the country, whether it is the Labour-led Welsh Assembly Government or Labour in local government. Look at the work that the Refugee and Migrant Forum of Essex and London does. It threatened to take the Government to court over their terrible “go home” vans and was prepared to turn up at its local Labour council to say it must do more to support refugees and migrants.

The Ilford Salvation Army does a load of great work on homelessness, and I want it not just to provide for homeless people with direct provision, but to turn up at the door of their local councillors or Members of Parliament asking them to explain why public policy is having a detrimental impact on those people and how it needs to change.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for the ability of charities to explain themselves, and I fully support that. Will he point to the part of the Bill or any element of it which prevents that and therefore creates the need for the words “political campaigning”, not just campaigning on issues?

[Wes Streeting]

We are debating new clause 2. Members can see it but, for the benefit of those watching, let me point out that I do not see any reference in it to party political campaigning. It would simply enshrine in legislation the right of charities to undertake political activity. That is important, because a chilling effect followed the gagging law, which had a number of practical implications. For example, charities spent ridiculous amounts of time with spreadsheets trying to calculate their national spend versus constituency spend, and whether they were close to the spending limits and whether that would affect their collaboration with other charities.

I thought the Conservatives were the party that wanted to scrap red tape, yet they have generated a whole load of red tape for voluntary sector organisations whose funds would be better spent on helping their beneficiaries through either direct service provision or lobbying and campaigning. Students unions at the last general election were afraid to hold hustings events. Of course they should do that—it is nonsense that they should not hold those events. The gagging law had a chilling impact.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous in giving way. I do not know about his hustings events, but most of mine were held in churches, which are almost by definition charities. The number of charities that were afraid to hold hustings in my community was zero, so I am baffled as to why he feels that some were afraid about that.

[Wes Streeting]

I am simply citing the representations I have had from my old colleagues at the National Union of Students about the impacts of the gagging law. It is important to put that forward. I was the head of a charity at not one but two general elections. First, I was president of my university’s students union back in 2004, where our “Get out the vote” campaign in Cambridge undoubtedly contributed to the loss of an excellent Labour MP, in the form of Anne Campbell—she had abstained on the Second Reading of the Higher Education Act 2004, which I am sure contributed to that. Secondly, during the 2010 general election, I was president of the NUS.

At that time, charities were well constrained from party political activity and endorsing political parties, and there is unlikely to be a single charity campaigner in the country who cannot cite CC9 of the Charity Commission’s guidance chapter and verse, which is clear about the restrictions on charities in party political campaigning. The gagging law passed in the previous Parliament was a solution in need of a problem. There were no previous problems; it was just that the Liberal Democrats got scared of the consequences. Alas, even the gagging law could not save them.

Finally, on the general attitude to the voluntary sector’s political representation and campaigning, too many Members of Parliament seem to be happy to turn up and have photographs with guide dogs at party conferences, pop along to their local Barnardo’s outreach and have photographs with service users and be there for photographs, leaflets and press releases, yet when it comes to being confronted with the consequences of the decisions this place has made under successive Governments, they do not like the hard truths.

We need to think about the voluntary sector’s reach and its broad focus on speaking up for and serving the most disadvantaged in our society—people who do not know how to find their way into the corridors of power. Incidentally, those in the sector are not like the many commercial organisations that have also had significant amounts of public money, but which can none the less exercise their muscle in Committees, in the corridors in this place and on the Floor of the House. These are charities that speak up for some of the most dispossessed and disadvantaged in our society, and when they say that the gagging law has had a chilling effect, it is incumbent on us to listen and to take this simple, uncontroversial measure to ensure that every charity knows that they are empowered to make political representations to speak truth to power on behalf of their beneficiaries.

[Mr Wilson]

Let me begin by putting things right and congratulating the hon. Member for Cardiff Central on her promotion to shadow Justice Minister, which is something I should have said earlier. My heartiest congratulations to her. Things have warmed up a bit in the Committee this morning. I am glad to see that pulses are racing and faces are reddening: that is a good sign for healthy debate in Parliament.

I happily repeat for the Committee’s benefit what I said in our first sitting, as well as many other times in public: I support charities’ right to speak up for their beneficiaries, whether I, as the Minister with responsibility, or the Government like it or not. I cannot be clearer than that. Charity law already permits charities to undertake non-party political campaigning that furthers the charity’s purposes and that the trustees consider to be an effective use of its resources. That can legitimately involve campaigning to change the law or a policy, and non-party political campaigning to support such a change. That is absolutely clear. Charities must not support a particular political party. That is established by case law. It is defined widely, and it includes a charity promoting a political party event to its members. A charity cannot be used as a vehicle for the expression of the political views of its trustees or staff members.

Perhaps the hon. Member for Redcar got mixed up in what she was trying to say earlier, but she has the chance to put it right. It is clear that what she was suggesting is outside the law. If the Badger Trust were promoting an event for all political parties, that would be different, but promoting one party above another is clearly outside the rules and the definitions.

[Wes Streeting]

Is the Minister seriously saying that there are not charities up and down the country that have put on events hosting senior politicians of all parties and invited beneficiaries? Is he saying that charities should not do that?

[Mr Wilson]

It is astonishing how easily the hon. Gentleman gets the wrong end of the stick. I was clear that it is permitted if it is all parties, not one party. He said that that those charities invite Members of all parties to events, and that is the important distinction. If, as the Badger Trust did, a charity emailed its members to invite them to one political party’s event, that would be considered a very close association with one political party. If it did the same for all political parties, as the hon. Gentleman said without understanding the implications of that, that would be okay.

[Wes Streeting]

I cannot speak with authority about that specific case, but with the notable exception of big set-piece events, such as the Citizens UK events that were attended by the party leaders, we do not seriously expect the Prime Minister to turn up to an event hosted by a national charity and find people such as Natalie Bennett, Nigel Farage and all sorts of other people who will never have his job standing alongside him being given equal weight. Which other random parties should appear with the Prime Minister at charity events?

[Mr Wilson]

I think we are straying into the realms of electoral law rather than charity law, and I am sure you do not want us to stray too far in that direction. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 applies to all third-party organisations campaigning for a particular electoral outcome. It does not specifically target charities or prevent them from campaigning to further their charitable purposes. The Charity Commission’s guidance CC9 makes that absolutely clear.

The Hodgson review, which is under way and will report in the next couple of months, will look at all those issues and consider in detail all the representations that are made to it. I think the Opposition should have waited for the review to see the detail of the representations made and whether there is evidence that things are going wrong and that the so-called chilling effect is taking place.

There is no bar to charities or student unions holding husting events, provided they do so in a balanced, even-handed way that furthers the charity’s purposes. Like many other Members, I am sure, I attended the student union debate in my constituency. I am very surprised that any student union was worried about putting on an even-handed debate, open to all parties.

The Charity Commission’s guidance is clear and comprehensive. Unlike primary legislation, guidance can be relatively easily updated, with proper consultation to ensure that it reflects current case law and other developments, such as the rise of social media. In recent years, there have been cases where charities, inevitably, have strayed on to the edges in what they are doing in social media. The guidance on that is obviously fairly new, and it is important that it is there.

I would say simply that the new clause is unnecessary, unless the hon. Member for Redcar and her colleagues are arguing that charities should be able to engage in party politics, in which case I very strongly object. What we heard about the Badger Trust emailing its members asking them to go to a single party political event and sort of supporting the manifesto elements that had been introduced would fall into the category of party political activity. We should keep charities and party politics completely separate. Where charities engage in non-party political activity, they should take extra care to protect their independence and to ensure that they do not give the impression of being politically partisan in any way, and that is the category that would apply with regard to the Badger Trust.

It is right that we have an independent regulator in the form of the Charity Commission to investigate concerns where charities may have overstepped the mark of what is acceptable, and some have done that in social media in the last couple of years. Where the dividing line between charitable and political becomes blurred and charities come to be seen as politically biased or aligned with a particular party, there is a real risk of public trust and confidence in charities being degraded. One of the charities’ strengths is their independence and their ability to stand outside politics, and I would really hate to see that undermined by the new clause.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Happy new year to all members of the Committee. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar in defending the inclusion of clause 9 in the Bill. In the Minister’s response to the inclusion of the clause and the debate in the House of Lords, he cited extensively the changes made to the Government’s approach to the disposal of housing association stock. That context is particularly important. Given the fact that the Government attempted an appalling land grab on housing association stock, to the extent of threatening housing association providers that did not comply with the objectives of public policy with taking their assets by force of statute, it is unsurprising that the Lords chose to include the clause, so that the assets of those housing associations could be protected. The Government’s approach may have changed—many housing associations have chosen to back down from confrontation with them—but the way in which housing associations were effectively press-ganged by the Government is totally unacceptable and not the way to do partnership.

I wonder whether as many housing associations would have rolled over if we were closer to the end of the Parliament than to the beginning, although I appreciate that many housing association trustees were placed in an invidious position. I might have wished them to take a stronger stance, but given the pressure they were put under by the Government perhaps it is unsurprising that they rolled over.

When I read the Lords’ debate on the clause, I was struck by the contribution from Lord Beecham, who said that although the clause appeared because of Government policy on housing associations, it could have wider application. For example, he cited charities running medical services and the National Trust. However, given that many parts of the voluntary sector are effectively involved either directly or indirectly in providing public services or picking up the slack when public services have been cut, it is not beyond the Government’s wit or imagination to find other areas where they might like to steamroller around and seize charitable assets.

At the heart of clause 9 there is an important principle that dates back to Elizabethan times: many people who give to charities make those gifts or bequests for specific charitable purposes. It should not be possible for the Government—not only this Government, but any Government—to direct charities to use those assets for different purposes, however well intended, desirable or, indeed, undesirable the Government’s objectives may be.

The clause is important because it provides protection not just in relation to housing associations—the Minister makes the case that that may be unnecessary given the change of approach—but more generally, so that if a Government, whatever their political leaning, want to use charitable assets for purposes for which they were not gifted or bequeathed, they will have to accept that those assets are protected. If not, they will have to amend legislation or provide a specific exemption, which would generate a very worthy debate in this House or in the Lords. For those reasons—and, as I have said, given the appalling way in which the Government conducted themselves immediately after the election—I strongly support the inclusion of clause 9 and support my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar in voting to keep it.

[Mr Wilson]

I will respond to a few of the points made by Opposition Members. On the issue that not all housing associations have signed up for the deal, as I said earlier, 93% of the total housing association stock is covered by those housing associations that have said yes to getting involved in this deal, which is voluntary. The message from the Opposition seems to be that the deal is not voluntary, but compulsory. It is quite the opposite; 93% of the housing stock in England has signed up for this deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wilson]

After that excitement, we can get on with the proceedings of the Committee.

Under the current law, there are several criteria that disqualify a person from being a charity trustee. The automatic disqualification provisions date back to the Charities Act 1993 and represent an important way of protecting charities from those who might seek to abuse their position of trust, whether for personal financial gain or to access vulnerable people for abuse. The existing criteria for disqualification include any unspent conviction for an offence involving deception or dishonesty; where the person is an undischarged bankrupt or disqualified company director; and where the Charity Commission or court has removed the person from serving as a trustee.

Clause 10 does two things. First, it adds new criteria for a person to be automatically disqualified from being a charity trustee. Secondly, it extends disqualification beyond trusteeship to cover the chief executive and chief finance officer positions in a charity. The existing criteria for automatic disqualification remain unchanged.

In practice, the Charity Commission’s experience has been that the existing criteria are useful but too narrow, and that they do not cover several areas that ought to merit automatic disqualification, including convictions for serious terrorist offences, money laundering or bribery. Many people would be surprised that those offences do not already result in automatic disqualification, although in some cases there may be an overlap with existing disqualification if the offence involves dishonesty or deception.

I would like to say something about terrorist and extremist abuse of charities. The Charity Commission recognises that that type of abuse may not be relevant to most charities, but it is an increasing area of commission casework and an area of great concern. The commission has an important role in helping charities to prevent that type of abuse from occurring in the first place and in ensuring that abuse is reported and stopped and that charities are better protected in the future. It has detailed guidance for charities on how they can protect themselves from that type of abuse.

The Charity Commission also works closely with the police and other agencies where concerns are raised. In 2014-15, the commission made 506 disclosures of information to the police and other agencies as a result of concerns about charities involving terrorism or extremism—up from 234 disclosures in the previous year. It undertook 80 visits or monitoring cases to charities at risk of terrorist or extremist abuse. It also received 11 serious incident reports and undertook 32 pre-investigation assessment cases and 20 formal investigations. The new automatic disqualification provisions in the clause, along with case-by-case disqualification, which we will discuss shortly, will help to protect charities from terrorist or extremist abuse.

The extension of automatic disqualification in the clause covers other areas, such as money laundering, where added protections are needed. Let me give the Committee an example. A police investigation resulted in a number of convictions for fraud and money laundering offences, which related to funds applied by a charity in relation to contracts to house and support asylum seekers. Those convicted of fraud were disqualified from acting as trustees, because fraud is a crime involving deception or dishonesty. However, those convicted of money laundering were not disqualified, because the offence of money laundering does not fall within the existing criteria. The latter persons are no longer charity trustees, but as the law stands there is no bar on their becoming trustees again.

The new criteria for automatic disqualification proposed in clause 10 also include cases where a person has been found guilty of contempt of court in civil proceedings where a false statement or disclosure is made; cases where a person has been found guilty in the High Court of disobedience to a commission order or direction; and designation under terrorist asset-freezing legislation.

The existing disqualification provisions do not prevent individuals from being appointed to non-trustee positions of significant authority in charities. It is counterintuitive that someone can be disqualified from acting as a trustee of a charity, only to continue their abuse by taking up the post of chief executive, in which they could exploit that influence. The commission has seen that happen in some cases, with disqualified trustees taking up other senior positions in other charities and subsequently committing abuse. The clause would deal with that by preventing disqualified individuals from acting in top management positions, thereby reducing the risk of abuse. The top management positions covered by the extension of disqualification are the most senior executives—usually the chief executive officer, along with the finance director or chief finance officer, if there is one.

The clause also provides a power for the Minister for the Cabinet Office to make regulations to amend the list of criteria. The Minister is required to consult if the regulations add a new offence, and such regulations will be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, requiring debate and approval before they can be made. We included the requirement to consult in response to a recommendation from the Joint Committee on the Draft Protection of Charities Bill, following pre-legislative scrutiny.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the existing regime of waiver under section 181 of the Charities Act 2011 will also apply to any persons disqualified under the new criteria, enabling such persons to apply to the Charity Commission for their disqualification to be waived in relation to a particular charity.

[Wes Streeting]

Will the Minister tell us how many waivers the Charity Commission has granted in the past 10 or 20 years?

[Mr Wilson]

Six waivers were granted between 2008 and 2014. Every application for a waiver in that period—six out of six—was granted.

The waiver provisions are important as they enable disqualified individuals who can show that they have turned over a new leaf to take up positions of responsibility in the charity sector. Of course, there is nothing to prevent disqualified individuals from volunteering or working for the charity in other roles, subject to disclosure and barring service checks where necessary.

As I said on Second Reading, waiver applications will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Charity Commission will take into account the nature and seriousness of the conduct that resulted in the conviction and consequential disqualification. The commission has said that it will also take into account the type of charity concerned. In particular, it already accepts that charities working to rehabilitate offenders will often be able to make a compelling case for a waiver. The experience of someone with an unspent conviction might well be vital to the trustee body’s understanding of its aims and how best to pursue them. The commission will also take into account evidence that the person no longer represented any particular risk to charity. For example, if someone had a lifetime disqualification from an unspent conviction —say, 30 years ago—they might be able to show clearly that they had long since changed their life around. An application for a waiver would usually require the support of the charity’s trustees. A decision of the Charity Commission not to grant a waiver could be appealed to the charity tribunal, which would consider the matter afresh.

It is right that the Charity Commission looks beyond the benefits for the individual and considers the risk and benefits involved not only for any charity directly concerned, but for charities generally. The proposed disqualification powers will protect charities from individuals who present a known risk, while providing for the rehabilitation of offenders and a way back into charity trusteeship on a case-by-case basis. That strikes me as a fair and proportionate system.

As I have just told the hon. Member for Ilford North, in the past four years there have been six applications to the Charity Commission for a waiver from disqualification where the disqualification resulted from an unspent criminal conviction. All those applications were granted. I know that charities involved in rehabilitation have expressed some concern about the provisions, and I am keen to discuss with them how we can support charities involving ex-offenders through the waiver process while protecting the charity sector from known risks.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give the Committee a sense of the scale of this problem? How many charities does the commission intend winding up in any given year?

[Mr Wilson]

I will certainly ask the Charity Commission to make sure that the hon. Gentleman has those figures; I hope that that will happen by the end of my comments, but if not, it will be straight after. [Interruption.] That is quite impressive—I thank my officials. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there will be one or two such occasions a year.

The new power in clause 7, which I admit is quite a straightforward power, will enable the Charity Commission, in the context of a statutory inquiry, to act to transfer any remaining assets of the charity under inquiry to another charity with the same charitable purposes, something the commission can already do under its existing powers, and then—this is the new provision—direct that the empty shell of the charity be wound up, which it cannot currently do. This power will be rarely used by the Charity Commission. The commission estimates it will be exercised on only one or two occasions each year, as I have just said, and it is subject to a range of safeguards.

The power to direct winding up will only be available in the context of a statutory inquiry and where the commission is satisfied that there is misconduct, mismanagement or risk to charity property. The commission must be satisfied that the charity does not operate or that its charitable purposes could be more effectively promoted if it were to cease to operate and that the exercise of this power is

“expedient in the public interest.”

As I have said several times, all the Charity Commission’s powers must be exercised in line with the commission’s duty in section 16 of the Charities Act 2011, which requires the commission to have regard to the principles of best regulatory practice, including the principles by which regulatory activities should be proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed. So there is a high bar for the commission to make the case for winding up following an inquiry.

The commission is required to publish details of a proposed winding-up order and to invite representations from any interested party. The commission must take into account any representations it receives before making the order to direct winding up. In most cases, the commission will be expected to allow 60 days for the making of representations before it can make the order. It can shorten that period when it considers it necessary to make the order sooner to prevent or reduce misconduct or mismanagement, or to protect the charity’s property or property that may come to the charity. An order directing the winding up of a charity can be appealed to the tribunal by its recipient and the charity’s members, so ensuring proper judicial oversight.

The clause will enable the commission to direct the charity’s trustees, officers or employees to take action to wind up that charity. The commission itself cannot wind the charity up, as that would involve the commission acting in the administration of the charity—something that it is prohibited from doing by law. The Joint Committee welcomed the proposed winding-up power, saying:

“We are persuaded that the power to direct the trustees of a charity to wind it up in certain circumstances and transfer resources elsewhere would only be used in rare circumstances and that, in such circumstances, the Charity Commission would use it sparingly, given its significance. We therefore support the inclusion of clause 6 of the draft Bill”—

as it was then—

“subject to an amendment setting out the publication scheme for a notice of intention to direct the winding up of a charity.”

We amended the draft Bill to include the requirement to publish a notice and consider representations, as recommended by the Joint Committee.

Let me give the Committee an example of where this power could be used. The commission has information suggesting that one of only two trustees was acting while disqualified. The finances were being grossly misrepresented, funds were being misappropriated and the commission had been given false or misleading information. It reported its concerns to the police, highlighting potential criminal offences. The disqualified trustee left the charity, leaving only one trustee, who was unable to explain the position. The remaining trustee was potentially vulnerable and had not been privy to the disqualified trustee’s actions. The commission found that the charity had been used for years to personally benefit the disqualified trustee, who was later convicted and imprisoned for theft. It had applied only nominal amounts for its charitable purposes. The commission decided to remove the charity from the register, as it was not operating, but the remaining trustee did not take action to wind up the charity. The commission does not have the power to force the trustee to do so and cannot do so itself. In such cases, the use of the proposed power would clarify the position, provide for the proper application of assets and ensure that the charity could not later restart operations with a risk of further abuse. Although its use will not be common, I hope the Committee will agree that this will be a useful tool in the Charity Commission’s armoury.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Maggie Throup]

I have to disagree with the hon. Lady. Regulatory abuse in charities is of course rare, but it is vital that measures are in place to ensure that the public and, indeed, the many charity volunteers do not lose confidence when it happens.

Clause 1 provides a suitable means of protecting our many charities, small and large, from unscrupulous behaviour. It will maintain the confidence of the public, the many donors and the amazing volunteers, as well as those employed by charities. I am delighted to have been able to speak in support of the clause, which I commend to the Committee.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. Like many hon. Members who have spoken, I have experience in the voluntary sector. I have been the chief executive of a small national charity, a senior manager in a medium-sized national charity and a trustee of local and national charities. I continue to be a patron of a number of local charities, although I will spare the Committee a list of all of them. I do not think that, as a patron, I will come under the scope of the Bill, but as a trustee I certainly have cause for concern.

As has been said, it is important that the public have confidence in the vibrant voluntary sector throughout the UK. It is worth stating that, considering the professionalism of the work that takes place in the sector as a whole, the public should have that confidence. In a week where there has been some unhelpful and, I would argue, misleading coverage about the quality of charities and the way in which donors’ money is spent, it is worth repeating that case, because there is a lot of mischief-making going on. It is important to have in place the right regulatory framework to give the public confidence, but whenever we pass legislation in this place we should ask ourselves what problem we are trying to solve; whether the approach we are considering would be effective; and, most importantly, whether the legislation is proportionate. The measures in clause 1 fail many of those tests.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the question of proportionality. I would merely argue that one must not forget that the charitable sector enjoys a huge benefit from the state; after all, the tax break is a state subsidy. I do not think any of us—certainly not the hon. Gentleman himself—would challenge the importance of that state subsidy, but although it is hugely welcome and important to the sector, it imposes a burden. The charitable sector must account for its actions in exactly the same way as other organisations that receive benefit from the state should do. The clause is one element in ensuring that that happens.

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making those points. It is absolutely right that charities benefit, particularly from gift aid. As an avid, although somewhat despondent, viewer of “The X Factor”, I notice that the Chancellor has generously waived VAT on the winner’s single, which I am sure we will all be rushing to buy.

[Peter Kyle]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Wes Streeting]

Is my hon. Friend going to rush to buy it?

[The Chair]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, we are way off the point of the clause. We widened the debate to include clause 1 because many Members wanted to speak, but “The X Factor” and VAT are far beyond the scope of the debate. If the hon. Member for Hove was going to intervene along those lines, I caution that he might wish to reconsider.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

[Wes Streeting]

I apologise, Mrs Main, for the fact that my enthusiasm for cheering the Chancellor went too far.

In response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, it is worth pointing out that the state also gains a great benefit from charities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove said, many voluntary sector organisations deliver public services. I would also argue that the voluntary sector is increasingly picking up the slack and the burden of a lot of public sector cuts by supporting some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in society.

Some of the points that have been made about the challenges that should be addressed by regulation are covered by existing powers. If a charity is consistently late in submitting accounts, that is a breach of the 2011 Act, and powers exist to deal with that. If a breach of a charity’s governing documents leads to governance problems, that would likely be covered by misconduct and mismanagement provisions, and the Charity Commission could open such an inquiry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure not only to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, but to serve on the Committee and to support the Bill, which is both welcome and necessary. I want to speak both about clause 1 and in general support of the Bill.

As has been mentioned, charities do fantastic things across the country, both nationally and locally. We regularly hear of examples of their inspirational work. In my speech on Second Reading, I made reference to the great north run and I am always struck by the general public’s generosity and support for charities. I am sure we can all cite good examples from our constituencies of the work of charities and trustees. Small charities play a huge role in our local communities, providing vital services over and above those offered by the public sector. These small organisations, like larger charities, often make a big difference to the lives of individuals and their families.

Trust and confidence are vital in the charity world. Sadly, the high-profile charity crises that make it into the newspapers and on to TV can damage trust in charities. It is therefore important that we do all that we can to maintain and strengthen that trust.

[Wes Streeting]

The most high-profile case that is on all our minds is of course that of Kids Company. Given the heavy interaction between Kids Company, the civil service and Government Ministers at the highest levels, at what point does the hon. Lady imagine that the Charity Commission might have issued a warning notice if Ministers failed to spot the problem?

[Wendy Morton]

Kids Company is one of the charities that sadly did make it in to the newspapers and on to our TV screens and it has been debated in the House. It is an example of why the public’s trust is so vital. The Bill demonstrates the importance of having an effective charity regulator and strengthening the powers of the Charity Commission to protect charities from abuse. Clause 1 focuses in particular on trusts and trustees and the issue of warnings. That is the right and appropriate thing to do. We will move later to the additional powers to spend and to remove trustees. In doing so, it is important that we recognise that deliberate wrongdoing is rare. It may be unlikely that the new powers are used many times, but let us hope that they are not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

Those of us who run campaigning charities are very familiar with the regulations to which the Minister refers—

[Wes Streeting]

indicated assent.

[Peter Kyle]

I see my hon. Friend nodding, recalling his days in charities.

The point is that for those in government, it is policy and it is not always party political, but those of us who are familiar with the regulations know that sometimes charities need to speak out absolutely. The Minister’s predecessor once said publicly that charities ought to “stick to their knitting”. Charities find that kind of statement offensive, and trustees interpret it as an indication that they should not get involved in public campaigns that might impact on Government policy. Will he say that charities should do everything beyond knitting, including challenging the Government? It does not have to mean that they are involved in party politics—

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

The Opposition’s amendment specifies a 14-day window before a warning notice could be issued. Is my hon. Friend aware that several voices in the voluntary sector say that that does not go far enough, but that what she has proposed is a sensible compromise that gives flexibility and fair notice?

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We received many representations from the charity sector suggesting that 28 days was the preferred option. We thought that 14 days was sufficient to give people the chance to notify trustees and to take immediate action to challenge concerns. The amendment is fair and I hope that the commission will consider our 14-day proposal as a good timeframe when setting out its guidance, so we look forward to seeing the detail.

I also look forward to exploring some of the Minister’s examples of when action must be swift and what steps the commission will take in such circumstances. I am also glad that the sector will be able to contribute during the consultation period. In the light of the safeguard of this being proposed by the commission and the constructive discussion with the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Syria: Refugees and Counter-terrorism

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which is why I pointed out earlier that we will take people who are vulnerable and that could include Yazidis or Christians, who, because of their religious beliefs, have not only been persecuted in Syria but have sometimes found life difficult in the camps as well.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

This afternoon the Prime Minister has unhelpfully conflated membership and signing up to the Schengen agreement with taking a proactive part in a proper co-ordinated pan-European response. Why does he continue to unhelpfully muddy these waters, and will he now give a clear explanation as to why, beyond the opinions of his rabid Eurosceptic Back Benchers, he is not engaging properly with our partners in Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

We are engaging. Our decision to take 20,000 people and our immense funding of the refugee camps will take the pressure off other European countries. I am not conflating those two things. Those who are part of Schengen have taken away all their internal border controls across Europe and they maintain their external border, so obviously the Schengen countries have to come together to work out what they are going to do about this migration crisis. We can be part of that—we help to fund Frontex and to secure the external border, and we are helping to break up the criminal gangs —but we have not decided to take our borders down, as they have, so we are not in the same position. I am not conflating the two; this is a really important point.