Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I should say at the outset that I do not intend to move new clause 1, although I want to take the opportunity to raise matters that concern it and to support Government amendments 28 and 29. Similarly, I do not intend to press amendment 1 to a vote.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. May I advise the hon. Gentleman that he needs to move his new clause so that we can debate the amendments? When he replies to the debate, he can ask the leave of the House to withdraw it.
Mr Jenkin
I am rather appalled, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have had to be pulled up on that procedural matter in my 21st year in this House.
New Clause 1
Bill of rights
‘Nothing in this Act shall be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689.’. —(Mr Jenkin.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 28.
Amendment 1, in schedule 1, page 51, line 6, leave out paragraphs 1 and 2.
Government amendment 29.
Amendment 78, page 51, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Mr Jenkin
I want to use this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the report by the House of Lords and House of Commons Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which was produced only a month or two ago. I believe that it sets down the terms on which we should consider parliamentary privilege, its importance and its relevance. In particular, chapter 2, on general principles, draws attention to privilege’s continuing relevance and value and notes that parliamentary
“proceedings must be immune from interference by the executive, the courts or anyone else who may wish to impede or influence those proceedings in pursuit of their own ends.”
The principle of parliamentary privilege rests on the concept of exclusive cognisance. That is referred to at the beginning of schedule 1, which quotes an extract from the 1689 Bill of Rights and refers to any matter that
“otherwise affects the scope of the exclusive cognisance of Parliament.”
The term “cognisance” might seem rather archaic, but it encapsulates what privilege is about. That is, as our report states:
“Parliament enjoys sole jurisdiction—normally described by the archaic term ‘exclusive cognisance’—over all matters subject to parliamentary privilege.”
That concept underpins parliamentary privilege. As we explain:
“Thus Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, the most important statutory expression of parliamentary privilege, states that ‘the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament’.”
We go on to explain that the most important part of that is that
“both Members and non-Members… are not legally liable for things said or done in the course”
of our parliamentary proceedings,
“nor are those outside who are adversely affected by things said or done in Parliament able to seek redress through the courts.”
Mr Allen
I am just trying to be helpful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) has given us a tour de force on this group of amendments, leaving me mainly to sweep up on amendment 100, which I am happy to do.
Amendment 100 emerged from the considerations of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform when the Bill was put before us and we had a chance to take evidence from witnesses. I hope that the amendment is helpful in raising a number of issues that I would like the Government to consider.
We heard a few moments ago from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, and I endorse his views in that the Government have listened on the particular item he mentioned, as a result of which we have a better Bill, although it is still far from perfect. That just shows that where there is interaction—this does not mean that the Government have to swallow every probing amendment that finds itself on to the amendment paper—there is a possibility of a little bit of give and take. From my perspective as a parliamentarian, I understand that some of the ethics coming from the Front Bench have to be a little sharper and a bit more oppositional, but I sometimes have the luxury of posing a view on behalf of Parliament that might find favour, albeit not necessarily in its existing form. Let that debate continue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The amendment to which the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is speaking relates to the issue of registered persons, which, as he said at the outset, is specific and narrow. The debate is not about the time that has been allocated to discussion of the Bill. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) has assisted the hon. Member for Nottingham North, and I hope that he will now speak directly to his amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The Members who are present this evening are indeed experienced, and the hon. Member for Nottingham North is very experienced. He knows that the purpose of the debate is to focus on the matters contained in the amendments. Perhaps Members who wish to comment on matters relating to Third Reading, or to other amendments, could save their remarks for those occasions. I am sure that, given the huge amount of work that has been done by the hon. Gentleman’s Committee, he will now want to return to the subject of amendment 100.
Mr Thomas
We have had a very good debate on these amendments but, sadly, what has become clear is that whenever meaningful transparency has been suggested, the Leader of the House has cited the danger of a huge level of bureaucracy as the reason real transparency cannot be achieved. This Bill is badly titled; instead of the Transparency of Lobbying Bill, it would be better and more accurate to describe it as a little bit of transparency on a little bit of lobbying Bill.
The Leader of the House did not revert to the attempt made by the former Minister, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who suggested that there were plenty of examples of countries around the world that had statutory codes of conduct that suggested that such codes were unworkable. The one effort that the right hon. Gentleman made was to cite the American political system as being a reason that a statutory code of conduct would not work here. Not even the scale of incompetence that the coalition parties are managing to achieve in government comes close to the scale of dysfunctionality in the American political system at the moment. It is not a meaningful comparison to cite the American code of conduct; more sensible would have been to point to the examples of Australia and Canada, as I sought to do. Experience there does show that a statutory code of conduct can be made workable and enforceable, and could help to achieve the objective of delivering real transparency when lobbyists meet Ministers and indeed members of the House of Commons. A clear, basic code of conduct would avoid confusion over which voluntary register was the best one. It would offer clarity to the House and, indeed, to those in Government about the standards expected and required by those lobbying. I urge the Government to accept, even at this late stage, the benefit of having a code of conduct, even for the tiny number of lobbyists their Bill will cover.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), in a very well-judged speech, highlighted the number of loopholes that exist in the Bill. He cited the balance of evidence presented to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, suggesting that further information should be included in the register, including the scale of financial information, the subject matter of the lobbying, and the purpose of the lobbying activity. He noted that representations for that additional information had come to the Committee from a range of organisations as diverse as Spinwatch all the way through to the Royal College of Nursing.
Our amendments sought to inject that greater level of information and transparency into the process. I deeply regret that even at this late stage Ministers are not willing to consider even their own versions of the amendments. I therefore seek the opportunity to press the new clause to a vote and urge all Members of the House to support it.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 68, in clause 2, page 2, line 1, leave out ‘a business’ and insert ‘their lobbying activity’.
Amendment 69, page 2, line 3, after ‘persons’, insert ‘or employer’.
Amendment 70, page 2, line 4, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
‘(ba) the person concerned is trading as a sole trader or company, or is an employee of such a person’.
Amendment 97, page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) The communications within this subsection are oral or written communications made personally to a Member of either House of Parliament, a Minister of the Crown or permanent secretary or senior civil servant or special adviser relating to—
(a) the development, adoption or modification of any proposal of the Government to make or amend primary or subordinate legislation;
(b) the development, adoption or modification of any other policy of the Government;
(c) the making, giving or issuing by the Government of, or the taking of any other steps by the Government in relation to—
(i) any contract or other agreement,
(ii) any grant or other financial assistance, or
(iii) any licence or other authorisation; or
(d) the exercise of any other function of the Government.’.
Amendment 98, page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) The communications within this subsection are oral or written communications made personally to a Minister of the Crown or permanent secretary or senior civil servant or special adviser relating to—
(e) the development, adoption or modification of any proposal of the Government to make or amend primary or subordinate legislation;
(f) the development, adoption or modification of any other policy of the Government;
(g) the making, giving or issuing by the Government of, or the taking of any other steps by the Government in relation to—
(iv) any contract or other agreement,
(ii) any grant or other financial assistance, or
(iii) any licence or other authorisation; or
(h) the exercise of any other function of the Government.’.
Amendment 71, page 2, line 8, after ‘written’, insert ‘, including electronic,’.
Amendment 73, page 2, line 9, leave out from ‘communications’ to ‘relating’ in line 10 and insert ‘are made to government or parliament’.
Amendment 116, page 2, line 10, after ‘secretary’, insert ‘or special adviser’.
Amendment 72, page 2, line 12, after ‘subordinate’, insert ‘or European’.
Amendment 74, page 2, line 20, at end insert ‘or parliament’.
Amendment 75, page 2, line 21, leave out ‘Minister or permanent secretary’ and insert ‘person being lobbied’.
Amendment 76, page 2, line 25, leave out from beginning of line 25 to end of subsection (5) and insert— ‘
“government and parliament” includes within the United Kingdom—
(a) Ministers or officials of government departments;
(b) Members and staff of either House of Parliament;
(c) Special Advisers and senior civil servants;
(d) Non-Ministerial Departments, Non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies and their senior staff; and
(e) Advisers and consultants to government and parliament within the meaning of this subsection, who are not employed by, or seconded to government or parliament but have an official, if temporary, role.’.
Amendment 99, page 2, line 33, at end add—
‘“senior civil servant” means a person holding a position of Grade 5 or above in the Civil Service of the State.
“special advisor” had the same meaning as in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
Government amendment 30
Amendment 80, in schedule 1, page 52, line 7, leave out paragraph 4.
Amendment 83, page 53, line 26, leave out paragraph 12.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 103, page 37, line 39, leave out
‘in relation to each reporting period’
and insert
‘if
(a) a formal complaint is received by the Certification Officer that would result in the Certification Officer requiring a membership audit in relation to the reporting period when the complaint was verified and
(b) the Certification Officer determined that a certificate was required.’.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 104, page 38, line 7, at end insert
‘unless—
(a) the Trade Union is appealing the membership certificate; or
(b) the Trade Union has challenged the Certification Officer’s acceptance of a membership audit certificate and invoked paragraph (a).’.
Amendment 106, page 38, line 22, leave out from ‘certificate’ to end of line 23 and insert
‘for which the trade union may request reasonable payment as per charges for requests for access to accounting periods in section 30(6).’.
Amendment 121, in clause 37, page 38, line 42, leave out
‘in relation to each reporting period’
and insert
‘if section 24ZA(1) is invoked’.
Clause stand part.
Ian Murray
It is a great pleasure to get to part 3 under your chairmanship, Ms Primarolo. I shall speak to clause stand part as well as to all the amendments in the group. It is totally inadequate that we are discussing part 3 of this hotch-potch of a Bill without having seen the impact assessment for part 3 or any results from the curtailed consultation that was put in place at the start of the process.
It is worth putting the amendments into context. The past three days and the hundreds of e-mails that all Members have received from their constituents show how much of a dog’s breakfast the Bill is. It is in good company, following the hotch-potch of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill and the total shambles that the House witnessed during the passage of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill. Part 3 of the Bill before us provides wide-ranging new powers to the certification officer on trade union membership lists, but no one, including officials of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the discussion paper, the explanatory notes, the trade unions and, I bet, even the Minister can tell the Committee what problem the Bill is trying to resolve.
The TUC stated in its evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee:
“As with part two we are unable to discern the problem that this part of the Bill is meant to remedy.”
Nigel Stanley from the TUC went on to say:
“We have asked BIS, the certification officer and ACAS through freedom of information requests whether they have received or made representations that we need to amend current powers to regulate union membership . . . We cannot find any demand for part 3.”
The only justification for part 3 has been the publicly stated view that it came out of a high-level meeting between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. What a contribution and combination that is. I wonder whether Lynton Crosby was in the room at the time.
Without any rationale for the Bill coming from the Government, perhaps we have to look for our own rationale. The reason given for the Bill by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in its discussion paper is the potential for trade union activity to affect people’s daily lives. It says:
“The general public should be confident that voting papers and other communications are reaching union members so that they have the opportunity to participate”.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Perhaps we could return to clause 36 and the amendments before us. General Third Reading points about the entire Bill, or any comments about the whole part, are not in order.
Ian Murray
Thank you, Ms Primarolo. You are absolutely right. That would have tempted me to discuss the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) producing amendments to other Bills in Committee and then not following through on the Floor of the House.
I was talking about the Government’s failure to produce any evidence, which I think feeds into amendment 103, because it is critical to the operation of the entire part, in relation to clause 36. My second point about the Department’s consultation is that it has not published or responded to any of the responses. The only information that Members of the House have seen is when people who have responded to the BIS consultation have self-published them, and I do not think that is good enough.
Trade unions are already heavily regulated, not just with regard to membership, but in other areas, too. No other membership organisations, voluntary sector groups, businesses or, indeed, political parties in the UK are subject to equivalent rules. There are already extensive regulations through the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act of 1992 and the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998—a fact that the Government seem to have wholeheartedly disregarded in bringing forward the Bill—and the responsibility trade unions have to the Information Commissioner.
Mr Allen
On a point of order, Ms Primarolo. My Committee looked at the White Paper on the lobbying Bill about 18 months ago. It made no mention of anything to do with the trade unions. The trade union provisions appeared in July, one day before the House rose—a bit about trade unions was bolted on to a Bill that all of us in the House had already dealt with as a lobbying Bill. Is it in order for those provisions to have been added when the House has been under the misapprehension that the Bill is about lobbying? Is this not a hybrid Bill and therefore disqualified from discussion in the House?
The Second Deputy Chairman
The hon. Gentleman is very experienced and has been a Member for a long time. As he knows, what he has asked is not a point of order. The House has given the Bill a Second Reading, and his points are for debate, if necessary, on the Floor of the House. They are certainly not a matter of order for the consideration of the Chair today.
Ian Murray
Thank you, Ms Primarolo, for that ruling on an important point of order. I remind my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, that other stuff has been bolted on to Bills, including the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill—disgracefully, the agricultural wages board was abolished at the last minute in the House of Lords without any political debate in this House.
Before the Government start lecturing unions about transparency, they should take a long, hard look in the mirror, subject themselves to this Bill and publish their own membership audit certificate.
Mr Allen
Could not the shadow Minister answer our hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) in this way? If on a lobbying Bill we are allowed to add in stuff about charities and trade unions, could not our hon. Friend produce another part to the Bill that addressed the issue he raises about shareholders? Obviously, that would be in order—anything can be added. Hon. Members from across the House could add stuff on child care, foreign policy or the Government’s war-making powers. Bringing forward a Bill and bolting on a part such as this at a very late stage is an abuse. It is surely not in order.
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, I will decide what is in order. If a Bill has unrelated purposes in it, that does not necessarily make it a hybrid Bill in procedural terms. It would be as well for us to concentrate on the points before us now.
Ian Murray
Thank you for that ruling, Ms Primarolo. All I would say is that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) is one of the most experienced people in the House. Perhaps he could bring forward an amendment on Report to consider the issue of regulating shareholders.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before I call the remaining speakers, I want to make it clear that I intend to call the Minister at quarter to 7, and I will sit the Member down at that time if they do not sit down themselves. Three Members still wish to contribute, and I hope that each of them will be very brief.
Mark Durkan
Like other Members, I rise to voice my overall concerns about clause 27. I will support the call by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) to vote against clause stand part. I also support amendment 66, which would keep limits as they are. We have heard no justification for the change proposed in the clause either to the threshold or the limit, and we have been given no example of anybody who has created any sort of difficulty. No scandal has been painted for us; we do not even have a scandal in waiting that anyone can point to. For part 1 of the Bill, however, we know of scandals that are completely untouched, and the message is “carry on regardless”.
It would also be remiss if we did not address some of the nonsense offered about amendment 101. Some might think it is a mad and daft measure that will get nowhere, but parts 2 and 3 of the Bill came out of nowhere. Amendment 101 is already gaining traction, and we are told that there will be an even harder version of it on Report. I therefore think that it needs to be fully and fairly reported. Not only would the amendment restrict the use of public funds for campaigning, it basically states that nobody can do anything that would come under controlled expenditure if they receive public funds, even if they are not using those funds for anything that might be defined as controlled expenditure. Therefore, if a charity, community or voluntary group receives funding, whether from the local council, a European programme, a Department or another public body, perhaps under a service level agreement, it can in no way use the advocacy side of its role in anything that might involve controlled expenditure.
In the context of Northern Ireland it is important for organisations that work and engage with young people who are otherwise disaffected—turned off by the political process, and in many ways socially disconnected—to get public funds. It is also good that in election periods they ensure there is discussion, political conversation and an opportunity for political parties, and others, to engage. Nothing is done that is unfair or gives advantage to any party. Indeed, the kind of hustings that are called put all parties on their mettle.
It is also good that women’s groups get funding, although it is often not enough. Groups such as Foyle Woman’s Aid in my constituency, or the Foyle Women's Information Network, sometimes get small amounts of money, or big amounts for the big and important services they provide. It is important that they too are part of the democratic conversation at election time, because that helps to move the debate on in Northern Ireland from the traditional binary divide that our media keep getting us caught into. All parties complain that we are constantly brought in to rehearse and refight the old arguments. We say we want to fight on wider social and economic points, but we are not able to because those who help to lead, stimulate and support people in the political process to try to move politics in Northern Ireland on to those issues—it is a contest of priorities, policies and performance in relation to socio-economic, cultural and environmental issues—have been told, “No, butt out; just let the parties do it their way. Leave control and influence around elections to the media.”
The hon. Member for Nottingham North said that the biggest people who influence elections and have all sorts of ulterior influences and interests at stake and in play are the big powerbrokers of the media. They are not touched by this Bill or anything else that the Government propose.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before I call the Minister, I thank hon. Members for assisting in ensuring that we can hear the Minister reply to the debate before the votes.
Tom Brake
Thank you for assisting with that, Ms Primarolo.
I suspect that the plaudits—admittedly some were lukewarm—the Government Front Benchers received for shifting the ground on clause 26 will not be repeated in relation to clause 27. This is perhaps not the occasion to ask the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) to explain how it is that someone who went campaigning with his nanny has become such a fervent critic of the nanny state. We may have to delay that clarification.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I remind Members that there is a 10-minute time limit on all Back-Bench contributions, starting from the next speaker. A large number of hon. Members wish to participate and I put them on notice that it may be necessary to reduce the time limit later this evening in order to ensure that everybody is able to participate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Some 23 Members still wish to speak, and it is therefore necessary to reduce the time limit for Back-Bench contributions to eight minutes with immediate effect. I ask Members to consider that they are not required to take up the entire eight minutes, even if there are interventions. I hope we will manage to call every Member who wishes to speak.
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Wright Reforms
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the Backbench Business Committee recommended up to 15 minutes for this debate and we have other business to get through? I know that he is covering important topics of interest to Members of the House, but I ask him to bear it in mind that we have a very busy afternoon, with other Back Benchers waiting to speak.
Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. There must be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions in order to ensure everyone can participate in the debate and we have time for the wind-ups.
Lobbying
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Given the number of Back Benchers who wish to speak, there will be a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench contributions.
House of Commons Administration and Savings Programme
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. For the convenience of the House, I will make it clear that I will call the amendments selected to be moved formally at the end of the debate so that we can deal with each of them in order. I hope that is clear. Given the time constraints on this afternoon’s business, there will be a 10-minute time limit on all Back-Bench speeches.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. To allow enough time for the last debate in the House this afternoon, the winding-up speeches are due to start at 2.40 pm. I am reducing the time limit to eight minutes because I can see eight Members standing and I want to finish at a reasonable time.
John Thurso
I am extremely grateful to all Members who have spoken. In the short time that is available, I cannot answer all the questions that have been asked, but I undertake to write to every Member.
A very good point about staff contingencies was made by both the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I will respond to them fully at a later stage, but I can tell them now that all staff of the House are paid more than the living wage if they are not in apprenticeship or training.
Before the debate, I was asked by a colleague how I thought it would go. I said, “I have not the slightest idea. It could be a damp squib, or it could be a car crash.” It has certainly not been a damp squib—it has been a very constructive debate, which has allowed serious issues to be considered—and it has most certainly not been a car crash, because those issues have been considered very fully.
I urge the House to accept the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst). I hope that the reassurance that I gave the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) will persuade him not to press his amendment, and I undertake to ensure that the meetings that I promised will take place.
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for raising the issue he did and for allowing it to be debated. He has done the House a very important service. He has told me that he wants to press his amendment, and I ask the House to resist it, but I hope that the motion will be passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Does the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) wish to press his amendment (a)?
Adam Afriyie
Given the assurances that I have received, I am comfortable with leaving it as it is.
Amendment proposed: (b), after ‘sector;’, insert
‘is of the opinion that proposed business improvement plans for Catering, Print Services, Cleaning and Office Keepers and Attendants should be implemented before further consideration is given to market testing those services;’.—(Sir Alan Haselhurst.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed: (c), at the end, after ‘report’, insert
‘, save that proposals under the income generation category be deferred for approval to a future date, so that more detailed information is available to Members, and also to give the House a specific opportunity to vote on whether it accepts the increased commercialisation of Parliament.’.—(Robert Halfon.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Electoral Registration and Administration Bill
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 22, page 5, leave out line 27.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 24, page 5, line 27, at end insert—
‘(2A) If the Minister considers it appropriate to proceed with the making of an order under subsection (2), the Minister must lay before Parliament—
(a) a draft of the order, and
(b) an explanatory document explaining the proposals.
(2B) Sections 15 to 19 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (choosing between negative, affirmative and super-affirmative parliamentary procedure) are to apply in relation to an explanatory document and draft order laid under subsection (2) but as if references to section 14 of that Act were references to subsection (2).’.
Amendment 23, page 5, leave out lines 28 and 29.
Amendment 25, page 5, line 32, after ‘section’, insert
‘with the exception of an order made under subsection (2)’.
Amendment 27, in clause 7, page 6, line 7, leave out ‘give a copy of the report to the Minister’ and insert
‘lay a copy of the report before Parliament’.
Amendment 28, page 6, line 9, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) The report must be laid before Parliament no sooner than three months beginning with the day on which the Commission is consulted, and no later than five months beginning with that same day.’.
Amendment 29, in clause 8, page 6, line 28, at end insert—
‘(3A) The Minister may only make a pilot scheme once written approval from the Electoral Commission has been received.
(3B) Any such written approval must be published by the Minister.’.
Amendment 26, in clause 10, page 7, line 34, at end insert
‘, with the exception of an order made under section 6(2)’.
Angela Smith
Clause 6 and the amendments to it deal with the possibility of amending or abolishing the annual canvass, and with the arrangements for the accountability relating to any such decision.
It is worth going through, once again, the principles of the annual canvass, which were, to some extent, rehearsed last week in relation to clause 4 when we talked of the importance of proactive methods for encouraging registration, and of the exercise by individuals of the business of re-registering their presence on the electoral register. More often than not, the business of registering to vote is seen as an exercise in democratic participation, and as a right, enshrined in law and hard won over the centuries by many who made huge sacrifices to secure it, but the House should remember that it is also a duty and a responsibility.
We live in a society in which the relationship between the individual and the state is governed by democracy. We have, of course, government by consent, but implied in the concept of democracy and government by consent is the view that vital to the process is majority participation in the most important decision of all—who should govern our nation. That is why Labour Members were so appalled by the Government’s initial proposal that citizens should have the right to opt out of the democratic process, and it is why in turn it is right that there should be a civic penalty for refusing to acknowledge the responsibilities inherent within the concept of government by consent.
Registering to vote, therefore, is an important part of the democratic culture of our country, and I repeat what I said last week: we should always bear in mind the importance of perspective when considering the process of electoral registration. If we consider it important that citizens of this country see registration as an important right and duty, we should ensure that our approach to registration encourages the regular exercise of such a duty and the active involvement of the citizen in the process by way of the regular renewal of that right. That is why we have tabled amendment 22, which, along with amendment 23, would remove the Minister’s right to abolish the annual canvass.
At this point it is interesting to consider what the Minister said about the arrangements for 2014 before he conceded that an annual canvass was required. He said:
“Effectively, what we are going to do is a modified canvass, which focuses the resources exactly where you need to work harder. We will write to everybody individually who is on the 2013 register and ask them to register individually. Where we have any households where there is nobody on the register, they will receive the household form in the usual way. They will send it back. You will then approach each of the people on that form individually to register. Where electoral registration offices have information that people have moved, so for example from the day-to-day, already-used council tax records, housing benefit records, they will write to people directly to see who is at the household and then chase them up.”
It is clear that the Minister was planning what he refers to as a “modified canvass” in 2014 based on the 2013 register—compiled, of course, from a full annual canvass in October of the latter year.
The Minister needs to answer these key questions. Is what I have just mentioned the kind of arrangement that he envisages for the future under clause 6(1) and which he plans to introduce via the provisions in clause 6? If that is the case, the Committee would appreciate some detail about when he thinks the arrangement might be introduced. Are we talking about 2015 or 2016? Does he have plans to mix and match the approaches so that there are modified canvasses, with a full canvass perhaps every five years? The Committee would like to know before making its mind up about clause 6, given that it gives the Minister the right to make those changes.
If the Minister is considering a mixed approach, it stands to reason that he would be conceding the Opposition argument that the abolition of the annual canvass was likely to lead to a long-term drop-off in the numbers registered. Moreover, it is also likely to lead to distortions in the accuracy of the register. An annual canvass is a good way of spot-checking that the assumed stability of a given majority on any register is based on sound continuing evidence.
Finally, I draw attention to the views of the Electoral Commission. It is urging the Minister to confirm the commencement date for the new individual registration provisions, and it is recommending that the date be 1 July 2014. That begs a few questions. If we commence individual registration on 1 July 2014 with the modified canvass arrangements outlined by the Minister, which I cited earlier, when will the full canvass, which most Members have assumed will take place, commence? Are we looking at February that year? If not, when exactly are we going to move into the transition phase? What period will elapse before the Government move to the first phase of individual electoral registration in transition and the use of the carry-over provisions? All those questions are worthy of answers and underline how crucial it is for the Government to get on with the job of publishing an implementation plan.
The Opposition believe that commencement should take place only when the Electoral Commission indicates that completeness is at such a level that we can feel secure about participation at the ballot box. It is therefore doubly important that we get that information on the Floor of the House sooner rather than later. To go back to the main point of the discussion, are we going to get a full canvass, as we understand it under the old system, at all in 2014, or is the Minister intending to proceed only on the basis of a modified canvass? I look forward to his response on those points.
The annual canvass has an important role to play in our democracy, and Labour Members believe that it is crucial that registration should be brought regularly to the attention of the people. However, we are not the only ones who believe that. Take the comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister himself, alongside the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), in “Liberal Democrat Voice” in November 2010, when they said to Lib Dem members:
“In the light of today’s news that 3.5 million voters are missing from the electoral register, and in view of the forthcoming boundary changes based on the number of voters on the electoral roll as it stands next month, a timely e-mail reminder today to Liberal Democrat members from Nick Clegg and Simon Hughes:
I’m sure you will agree that we as Liberal Democrats need to play our part in helping to ensure that everybody who should have the right to vote is in a position to exercise that right come next May.”
They went on to say:
“Once you have made sure your form is safely completed please take a moment to check family and friends have filled out theirs too. Getting half a dozen of your friends signed up to vote could make the difference in a tight election next May.
Making democracy work is something all politicians should be committed to, and we are proud to encourage Liberal Democrats to play our part.”
It is therefore absolutely apparent that Liberal Democrat Members do place faith in the annual canvass and see that it has an important role to play in maximising completeness of the register.
Whitsun Recess
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr MacShane
Does the hon. Gentleman know the German term “Kauft nicht bei Juden”? If he does not, he can look it up when he reads Hansard tomorrow. I was in South Africa, where the minority white Government behaved abominably. I could not meet a black friend in an hotel. I worked with the black trade unions there. I share many of the hon. Gentleman’s criticisms of Israel, but the last time I was there, I could meet Arab Israeli parliamentarians and Arab supreme court judges, and I saw Arab women and their families swimming alongside Jews in the sea off Tel Aviv. The apartheid comparison is there for one reason only: an apartheid state cannot exist; it has no right to exist. Those who call Israel—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman spoke for 20 minutes, and he knows full well that interventions must be brief. A lot of Members are still waiting to speak, and I will need to consider imposing a time limit if speeches do not get a little shorter.
Sir Bob Russell
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am unable to comment on what the right hon. Gentleman has said, as I have no personal knowledge of the points that he made.
I shall conclude by reading part of early-day motion 9, which
“calls on the UK Government not to support Israel in its continuing acts of breaches of international law and UN resolutions in respect of illegal action in international waters and in the illegal occupation of the West Bank and the annexation of East Jerusalem.”
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I should like to expand on my previous comment. We need to arrive at the wind-up speeches by 5.30 pm at the latest. If each Member who has indicated that they wish to speak takes approximately 10 minutes, they will all have the opportunity to participate. If that does not happen over the course of the next couple of speeches, I shall have to resort to imposing a time limit, but I am sure that I can trust all Members to watch the clock and make their points succinctly.