Elections Bill
Viscount Thurso ExcerptsMonday 28th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 96-VI Sixth marshalled list for Committee - (24 Mar 2022)
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I have a question—and I did not come in to speak either. Since I have been a Member of this House, which is 20 years, there is at least one Member—I think only one—who was here when I arrived, subsequently got elected to the other place and is now back here. Yes, he is here today. At the time that he left this place and got elected to the other place, was he able to vote in the election he stood in? I am not sure what his status would have been.
Living with Covid-19
Viscount Thurso Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I have said, we have launched the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, which will systematically tackle the top preventable risk factors and associated ill health, such as smoking and obesity, to improve the public’s health. We will also set out a strategy to tackle the core drivers of inequality in health outcomes in a new White Paper on health disparities this year.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, what advice will the Government give to employers? Will responsible employers be expected to provide testing for their employees?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
We will revise the workplace guidance for employers and work with them; again, it will be published shortly, before the full measures we announced yesterday come into effect.
His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Viscount Thurso Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Thurso (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am most grateful for this opportunity to support the humble Address to Her Majesty and join the expression of this House’s deepest regret and sympathy to Her Majesty and the Royal Family. All noble Lords who have contributed to this Address have rightly paid tribute to the unflinching support given by His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, to Her Majesty throughout her reign. Without doubt, that support has been a central plank in the success and stability of the monarchy over seven decades. I join all noble Lords in our expression of deep sympathy and sincere condolence to Her Majesty and the family. But in addition, His Royal Highness was a man of an extraordinary range of interests and singular talents, and it is to some of those—particularly on behalf of people in Caithness, where I serve as lord-lieutenant, as well as more personally—that I want to pay tribute.
For some 40 years, the royal yacht “Britannia” came to Scrabster each summer so that the Royal Family could visit the Queen Mother at her home, the Castle of Mey. His Royal Highness, an accomplished artist, often used the time to paint, and, indeed, to this day visitors to the Castle of Mey can see the works he gave to the Queen Mother hanging in the dining room. His ability as an artist was perhaps lesser known than some of his interests but none the less was a vital part of his character.
Another great interest was in innovation and engineering, and he made several visits to Caithness in 1957. One was to tour the new Dounreay, Britain’s first experimental fast breeder reactor facility—a technology in which Britain led the world at the time. His Royal Highness spoke knowledgeably with those on site and was deeply interested in what was happening. My father, who was there, often told me about it. An interest in and support for innovation, engineering and technology were the hallmark of all the work that he did.
On a personal level, I had the great privilege of being His Royal Highness’s host at a reception on your Lordships’ Terrace given by the Institute of Management Services, of which he had been president. The institute is dedicated to productivity and the study of methods of productivity and management. His Royal Highness was a highly engaged president who, as with all organisations he was associated with, took a keen interest in all the institute did. At the time, I was patron and had the task of making a presentation, which I did with what I thought were appropriate words. However, it was clearly too long, and he said loudly, but with a big smile, “Oh bloody well get on with it!”
While we mark his departure with great sadness, we also celebrate the long and remarkable life of a great polymath. We give thanks for a lifetime of support to Her Majesty, a lifetime of service to the nation, and a lifetime of encouragement to young people. His attitude was: get on with it. He made the most of the cards dealt and did not worry about the cards that were not dealt. That is an example to us all, and if we can live by that, it will be a fitting memorial to a long and productive life.
Business of the House
Viscount Thurso Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
I had already given up my support for proportional representation at that point, but yes, I have known the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for a very long time and I am grateful for his remarks. He mentions my work on preventing sexual violence, which I will continue outside this House, but that is another illustration of the use of LIBOR money. Last month, I was able to announce £1 million of that money going to the London School of Economics to create a centre for women, peace and security. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has just joined us, and I do not think that it is fair to say that that is pork barrel use of money. That is an example of how well used the LIBOR funds are. They are, of course, available only on a temporary basis, so setting up a whole structure to disburse them is probably not the way forward, but I will be able to pass on to the Chancellor what the hon. Gentleman has said.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I join colleagues in paying tribute to the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for the work they have done, on the House of Commons Commission in particular. Much has been achieved together and it has been great working as part of that team.
Will it be possible to have a debate on the provision of communication infrastructure by BT? It has been suggested recently that that should be hived off from the company. In the highlands of Scotland, in my constituency, I have received 45 complaints, such as that from John Sinclair of Caithness Creels, who has been waiting for more than three weeks to get broadband. The residents of Lothmore have been waiting for up to six weeks to be reconnected. There is a clear shortage of engineers, and BT seems to regard that as perfectly acceptable. I wrote two weeks ago to the chairman, Sir Michael Rake, pointing out the potential reputational damage to BT; I never received an answer from him. The high-level complaints team has however told me that it will look at the issue, but that it might take some time. That is not acceptable from the provider of a national infrastructure and I believe we should be concerned about that.
Mr Hague
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and pay tribute to the tremendous work he does for this House, which I have seen at close quarters. We have been able to work together very well in the House of Commons Commission, so I thank him very much for that. He raises an important issue. The Government of course have a very strong record on the development of superfast broadband around the United Kingdom, particularly in rural areas, but he is right about the difficulty in some of the remotest areas. I see that in North Yorkshire, and he highlights the difficulties in the extremely remote areas that he represents. Although there is not time for a debate, I think he has succeeded in raising the matter on the Floor of the House, and I hope that BT will take that very seriously and attend quickly to the matters affecting his constituents.
House of Commons Commission Bill
Viscount Thurso Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Bill proves that great things come in small packages. Brevity in a Bill can lead to excellent clarity of statute, a model that anybody forming a Government could look to follow in the future.
I thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for having been able to bring the Bill before the House so that the provisions can be put into statute to enable the next Parliament, we hope, to get a flying start as the new Commission is set up.
I associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the House and others who paid tribute to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), as I did when we debated these matters. May I assure him that I am called after the railway station, not the railway station after me? It is an excellent report which found an extremely good way forward and has found favour with everybody.
I should make it clear that I do not make these short remarks in my position as the spokesman for the Commission. The Commission’s position is set out in the written statements that I have issued in my name as the spokesman. That makes it clear that progress is being made to have the Clerk in place before Dissolution; and because of the sequential nature, as recommended by the Committee, the Director General recruitment has started but cannot be completed until that recruitment is in place, and that will be an early order of business for the new Parliament. Other than that, I would say that the Commission has sought simply to give effect to everything that was set out in the report as much as it can and as quickly as it can.
Speaking personally, I am delighted to see the Bill before the House. I do not want to go into any of the detail particularly. It does the important job of putting into statute the provisions that needed to be changed in the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, and we had the chance to debate the other matters earlier.
One small regret is that we did not find room in the Bill for an enabling clause, which would have permitted a future Commission to look at bringing the administration estimate and the Members Estimate Committee together, which was a sort of recommendation—a “think about” recommendation—that would have been useful at a later stage. However, I completely accept that, in order to get the Bill through quickly, that was a provision that had to wait for another time. My worry is that House of Commons Bills do not come along that often, so it may be a very long time before there is a possibility to do that.
The only other point that I would make, since it has been mentioned both by the shadow Deputy Leader of the House and others who have spoken, concerns election remuneration. It is important that these posts be elected by the whole House so that the whole House has confidence in each of the Members. I also feel, as I mentioned before, that the four posts should be equally remunerated. The reason for that is that I have not the slightest doubt that both of the posts that are currently not filled by Chairmen of Committees, where there is no question on this, will end up with Cabinet-style portfolios, and should end up with Cabinet-style portfolios. One of the most obvious places for this to happen is around human resources, change and diversity. It is an area that we do not scrutinise particularly well. One of the commissioners should take specific responsibility for that, and one of the commissioners who has done so extremely well in this Parliament would have been the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). There is a strong case for using commissioners—not saying that commissioners should not do the work, should just turn up and make some decisions, but actually saying that this is a new Commission, operating in a different way, and these commissioners should be used to undertake work.
Apart from that point, this is an excellent Bill that puts into effect the recommendations of the Governance Committee, and I, too, commend it to the House.
Thomas Docherty
That is something that we will look at. My position is that the current arrangements for the Select Committee Chairs have worked well in this Parliament and they should continue in the next Parliament.
It is critical that there is no ambiguity about the position of the parliamentary Labour party. We do not believe that the other commissioners should be paid, because the work is no more onerous than being a member of the Finance and Services Committee or the Administration Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee, and they do not receive payment. My understanding is that the Commission meets once a month and it would be slightly strange if the only member of the Commission who was not receiving an additional payment ended up being the shadow Leader of the House, because the shadow Cabinet are not paid. The Commission itself does not have an onerous meeting schedule—
John Thurso
I quite understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, I just fundamentally disagree with it. It is not in the Bill, so we can leave it until later.
Thomas Docherty
Perhaps that is a sign of our democracy at work.
As I say, that is the position of the parliamentary Labour party. We are absolutely clear. We want to see more cost-saving measures. We welcome the steps that the Commission is taking in looking at the shared services. That was something that came out of the Governance Committee’s report. We are clear: my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and I have said on more than one occasion that it is absurd that we continue to have two catering operations and two research operations. We already have shared services. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has done a lot of work on this. In the next Parliament the goal should be to reduce the costs of our democracy, not to drive them up further.
House of Commons Governance
Viscount Thurso Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I have added my name to the motion and speak in support of it. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), and his Committee and staff, on their excellent work. Before he set off, I thought to myself that the Committee would be jolly lucky to get the report in on time and that it would need an extension, but not only has the right hon. Gentleman beaten the deadline, he has done so with a well-crafted report that I would describe as an elegant package that has precision where required and sufficient imprecision where that is helpful. As other hon. Members have pointed out, one has only to look at annexes E and F to see the difference between what was and what is proposed, and the Committee is to be congratulated on its work.
Let me make it clear that I speak for myself and not as spokesman of the House of Commons Commission. The Commission awaits the verdict of the House, and we have provided for a meeting on Monday to take forward what is decided. At our meeting last Monday, we made an assumption that the House might like to approve the report, and everything is ready to fire the starting gun. The need for speed that was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) has been prepared for, but my comments reflect my thoughts on the report and do not come from the Commission.
I want to mention the quality of the staff. As I said when I gave evidence, since I have served on the Finance and Services Committee I have engaged with staff on a great many levels, and I have been impressed by how much they want us to succeed in what we do. I know that the report has been welcomed by members of staff, and I think they would like us to get on with delivering it. I sense great good will and desire on the part of our staff for the matter to be sorted out so that they have that governance structure. Clearly, this process started with a hiccup, but as the right hon. Member for Blackburn said, the report does not concern itself with that but looks forward. That is commendable and is perhaps a case of “per ardua ad astra”—we have had the hardship, let us now shoot for the stars.
The report suggests a package of measures. I am sure that each of us has bits that we would have done slightly differently, but this package is workable and can be put into place, and it is therefore important that we accept it as a package. I particularly like the way that the report first sets out clear principles, and secondly encourages us to move towards modern best practice. It also encourages us to retain what we value about the way this House is run, and to understand that in taking the best from the governance of other organisations, we must also preserve that which makes this House the successful legislature it is.
I wish briefly to mention three specific areas: the arrangements for the new Commission, restoration and renewal, and bicameral services. I will begin with bicameral services, having had the happy memory of serving on a sub-Committee of a Committee in the other place 20-odd years ago, when the prevailing notion was, “Who on earth are these people at the other end, and how do we keep them out of our House?” In the past couple of years there has been a welcome change, and I was pleased when the Audit Committee, which twice a year meets jointly with the House of Lords Audit Committee, proposed some form of joint procurement. That idea was taken up by Members of the other place, and we now have a joint procurement service. That demonstrates that with good will and agreement, such things are not only possible but can happen quickly.
Obviously, both Houses are sovereign, but if one looks at the history, they have never been particularly sovereign in facilities, but rather in legislature. The fact that different services have been built up in different ways over the decades, or even over a century, is not by design but rather by accident. Therefore, provided that the sovereignty of the two Houses in legislation and how they operate as legislatures in a bicameral system is preserved, it makes great sense to have joint provision or commissioning of services that will provide efficiencies for both Houses. I look forward to that happening, and see no reason why, with good will and dialogue, that cannot happen reasonably quickly.
Restoration and renewal will be a mammoth capital project with many noughts at its end—I have no idea how many, but there will certainly be a lot. I had a tour of the archives in Victoria Tower a few weeks ago, and we must understand that whatever happens and whatever option is chosen, that whole archive will have to be decanted. That will need a high-grade provisional archive, which prompts the question of whether we should move it twice—out of Victoria Tower and back again—or move the archive once and let it stay there. I have no idea what the answer to that is, but such questions will have to be considered.
Anybody who has done the tour of the subterranean areas of this place will be surprised to discover that one can go from one end of the building to the other in an almost straight line—I think it is the only place where one can do that. People would also be surprised at the complexity and amount of redundant services that date back 30, 40, 50 and 70 years, although nobody knows if they are actually redundant.
The magnitude of the task is immense. The important point is that I do not think that either of the posts that will be put in place should be asked to deal with that or have the competence to deal with that. The competence the director general will have is to advise the Commission and the House on how best to commission it. That is why I believe that the proper road map going forward is: first, for the core decisions to be made by the two Houses and for the two Houses to agree; and, secondly, to set up a form of governance rather like, as I suggested, the Olympic Delivery Authority, such that we get the expertise required to deliver a project with clear accountability and governance. We should not expect a new director general to come in and, in addition to running the place, also be the best project manager in the world, because that is simply not going to happen. Clarity on that is very important.
We will need to accept—and I think we do—that there are many different ways that restoration and renewal could go. The choices need to be made from facts, when the facts are revealed and the small committee that has been recommended will be set up in the next Parliament. Ultimately, once the strategic decisions have properly been made by the Members of each House, we will need to put in place a delivery mechanism.
I am in complete agreement with the arrangements for the Commission, which is not surprising since most of them were in the evidence that I gave to the Committee. It would be rather odd if I disagreed with what I had said at that time. I particularly felt that widening it to include external members and bringing on to it executive members were critical to creating a modern form of governance. I feel that the way in which the Committee has gone about looking at that, reading its evidence and the solution it has come up with for a wider commission, together with an executive committee as a sub-committee of the Commission, is absolutely an appropriate way to go forward.
I agree, too, with the Committee’s recommendations in respect of the four Back-Bench commissioners. I agree that they should be elected as that is a tremendous step forward. I also agree, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn said in his opening remarks, that they should all be remunerated. The reason for that is twofold: they should all be equal and they should all have portfolios. Clearly, there is the Finance and Services portfolio, which I hope will become a finance committee portfolio. There is the Administration Committee portfolio. I have always thought that there is a very strong portfolio for a commissioner to have responsibility for staff, human resources and diversity, and to take that on. I think that some of the comments that have been made today might support that. I also think that a commissioner should take a lead role in strategy, which would also encompass restoration and renewal. Many plcs have strategic committees, not a formal committee, to take on that role.
One of the arguments against that, of course, is that Chairs of Select Committees are remunerated—hence the remuneration for Admin and F and S—but that members of Select Committees are not. I suggest to those on the Front Benches that that is the wrong parallel to draw. The right parallel is with the Panel of Chairs. They are all remunerated to some degree for their work. I think the commissioners are quite separate from members of Select Committees. I think it is perfectly appropriate that those who also Chair a Committee should do that, but I believe it is important to ensure that the four commissioners are of equal rank, should all be elected and all be remunerated. On that basis, they should all have work to do. I would like to see that going forward, because that was an important part of the recommendations. The motion as written—carefully crafted—does not preclude that. I have no problem—the motion is right to suggest it—with people being elected to specific posts. I am quite happy with that, but when the four are elected by the whole House they should be remunerated and have proper work to do.
I again commend the report to the House. The right hon. Member for Blackburn and his Committee have done an excellent job. It is a real blueprint for a form of governance that the House will be able to be proud of. The duty of an existing commissioner in the dying days of his office, as it were, is to ensure it is delivered. I am sure my fellow commissioners feel the same way.
Finances of the House of Commons
Viscount Thurso Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the First Report of the Finance and Services Committee, HC 757, and the draft medium-term financial plan for the House of Commons as set out in the Appendix to the Report; and endorses the intention of the Finance and Services Committee to recommend to the House of Commons Commission a House of Commons: Administration Estimate for 2015-16 in line with the financial remit set by the House of Commons Commission.
I am very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving me this opportunity again to present the financial plan for the House of Commons. This is the third occasion on which the Finance and Services Committee has sought such a debate. It provides an opportunity for Members to have their say on the House’s finances and the services provided for them.
In my judgment, these debates have increased transparency. They have allowed Members to question the finances and the services that come from them. They have enabled not only questions to be asked but amendments to be made to the plans. All of that has led to a greater ownership by Members of the plans. During this Parliament, the Finance and Services Committee has been working to improve governance, including promoting better oversight of the Members estimate by Member bodies and a new Standing Order on motions with financial consequences for the House, as well as its reports and these debates.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
We should all strive to save money, but will my right hon. Friend nevertheless point out in his speech that some economies available to business are not available to the running of this place? In particular, will he refer the House to paragraph 26 on page 10?
John Thurso
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point, one that informed the very beginning of our first debate. Above all else, our job as a Parliament is to scrutinise Government, to legislate and to work for our constituents. The application of resource must be for that purpose. The savings we make, or the efficiency with which we undertake that operation, come as a consequence; they do not drive the way in which we seek to do our business. The overall point my right hon. Friend makes is absolutely taken and I will allude to it at various points during my remarks. I pay tribute to the fact that he has raised the point now and to his excellent contribution to the Committee.
I thank the director of finance and the other House staff for their positive engagement with the Committee, and for all their work and assistance in helping us to prepare the report and our advice to the Commission on the estimate. The finance team, led by the finance director, has undertaken very considerable improvements, including to the accounting system, management accounts, budgeting processes, management accounts and procurement systems. All are helping us to be more efficient and to get better outcomes both in terms of the costs of services and, importantly, what they deliver for us.
May I also use this moment to pay tribute to all the staff who serve us throughout the House service in all areas? I truly think, having now engaged with them for the best part of four years, that had I had such a staff in private life, I would have considered it a privilege to have had them working with me. I think they can be proud of everything that they do for us and we should be very grateful for it.
The Commission is required, under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, to lay an estimate each year seeking the House’s approval to fund administration services. These include the maintenance of the estate, security, the Clerks and the Library staff who advise us, and all the other staff who look after us so well: Hansard; the printing of papers and reports; education, visitor and outreach services; and IT systems. The role of the Finance and Services Committee is to work with the management of the House to prepare a draft estimate for the Commission to consider in December.
The Committee also monitors—this is a new task we have taken on recently—the Members estimate, which funds the Treasury contribution to the parliamentary contributory pension fund, Short money and Members’ ICT equipment. However, the role of the Finance and Services Committee does not extend to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority or Members’ pay and allowances, which are dealt with separately.
I am pleased to report that the savings target, which we set in 2010, has been achieved—although there are one or two loose ends currently being tidied up in the savings programme. The House is not bound by the Government’s spending plans. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), it is absolutely correct that we have the appropriate resource to undertake our work of scrutiny of Government and as legislators. None the less, it is important that we do so while taking account of the world we live in. The Commission therefore decided, before the 2010 election, that the House needed to reflect what was going on in the wider public sector and to ensure best value for the taxpayer. The Commission committed itself to a reduction in the administration estimate of at least 17% in real terms between 2010-11 and 2014-15. That meant setting a budget of £210 million for 2014-15 compared to a baseline of £231 million for 2010-11.
In December 2013, the Commission agreed an administration estimate for 2014-15 of £201.3 million. However, because of transfers between votes—most notably the merger of the House staff pension scheme into the civil service scheme and other exceptional factors—some adjustments are required to compare that figure with the target of £210 million. However, allowing for all of those factors—details are in the Committee's report—the estimate laid for 2014-15 is some £2 million below the target set in 2010. Part of that is due to a change of culture that has taken place within management and staff, and the fact that we now recognise that resource, once allocated, does not belong to a department and where not required can be returned rather than being spent to preserve the budget. I commend them for that change.
The Commission also decided that savings should be achieved, through detailed analysis of services and how they were delivered, to arrive at something better—not simply cheaper. For example, changes have been introduced in the way in which Select Committee evidence is submitted, processed and published. Less Select Committee evidence is being physically printed. That has not only reduced printing costs, but has allowed a reorganisation of staff in the Committee Office that has provided increased resources for priority areas within the Select Committee work stream.
Members will also be aware that the system for providing them with written answers has recently changed. In the past, written answers were walked across Whitehall in multiple copies—sometimes 500 to 600 answers a day in the Commons alone—and Members mostly received their answers only the following day when they were published in Hansard. They are now delivered electronically. Not only do Members receive their written answers by e-mail as soon as the answer is submitted by a Government Department, but the House will be saving nearly £800,000 every year in printing and related costs.
Sir Greg Knight
The changes to written questions are a vast improvement. In many cases under the old system, the press received the answer before the Member.
John Thurso
I concur with my right hon. Friend. It is a saving that has made life better for us, which is our objective.
Major savings have been made through reducing the amount of printing undertaken. For example, some lightly used publications are now only available online and most Committees have agreed to distribute papers electronically. The House is aiming for a “digital first” approach, and the Committee expects this to be a source of further financial savings in the coming years.
As someone who spent his professional life in the hospitality industry before entering this place, it gives me particular pleasure to report that significant progress has been made in the past few years in reducing the net cost of catering. My right hon. Friend referred earlier to paragraph 26, which relates to catering, and I fully accept that because of the hours we work and the way we need to be serviced, it is not possible to make the same profit as if we were a fully operational food and beverage operation, but that should not stop us seeking to be as effective as possible in the delivery of the service.
In 2009-10, at the end of the last Parliament, the net cost of catering and retail services was £5.7 million. In the current financial year, at an equivalent point in the electoral cycle, it is forecast to be £2.7 million. That exceeds the target set of reducing the net cost to under £3 million by 2015. I particularly compliment my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), the Chairman of the Administration Committee, and his Committee on all the work they have done in this area. The savings have been achieved by good old-fashioned sound management of costs and by benchmarking, and it has been achieved at a time when the House has moved to being a living wage employer and has got rid of zero-hours contracts. The staff and the unions, as well as the management, should be applauded for their help in that.
I never expected to see it in my lifetime, but we are now making great progress in working together with the other place. Under a joint procurement process, procurement for the House of Lords, the House of Commons and Parliamentary Information and Communications Technology is all operated by one dedicated service that must produce savings for all three.
The report also considers the prospects for the next four years. In June, the Commission agreed that forward plans for up to 2018-19 should be based on an assumption that the budget for core activities is flat in real terms—that, taking account of Government pay policy and the target for consumer prices inflation, the expenditure envelope for the administration estimate is assumed to increase by 1% in 2015-16 and by 2% thereafter. I stress that this is a working assumption, not a target; actual budgets will be set annually, and clearly it will be for our successor Parliament to decide what it wishes to do, but this establishes a good working base from which the management can proceed.
Even on that relatively generous assumption, it is projected that further savings will be required in 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. The House service will continue to look for opportunities to make further efficiencies and ensure value for money in the delivery of services through a continuous improvement process that focuses on making services more effective by improving their quality, increasing productivity, cutting costs—or, in the best of all worlds, all three. That most often takes the form of process reviews that engage staff in a continuous review of their work and harness their own creativity to solve problems. There are numerous examples of this, but the goal is to make small savings in time and effort, while maintaining or improving services.
In setting the financial remit, the Commission agreed that some new activities could be undertaken without necessarily having to be financed from within the existing budget. The two main areas are, first, scrutiny and related functions—the Committee received a bid from Chamber and Committee Services regarding Select Committees that we were minded to advise the Commission to accept—and, secondly, the resource consequences of major building refurbishment.
The Commission is keen to deliver a resolution of the House passed in 2007 that there should be dedicated space for education visitors. Construction has now started on a new education centre in Victoria Tower gardens that will accommodate 100,000 children a year, as opposed to the 45,000 we can currently accommodate. In addition, the facility will reduce pinch points, such as the Portcullis House entrance, and release the Macmillan room for other uses. It is due to open, we hope, in 2015.
Following the Wright Committee report at the end of the last Parliament, Select Committees have been one of the success stories of the Parliament, and the Liaison Committee is keen that this success be built on. As I just mentioned, the Finance and Services Committee is recommending a modest increase of £900,000 in the resources available to Select Committees, either in the form of additional staff or by providing additional budget. The Committee is also due to consider a bid from the Library that would enable it to provide more research support.
Members will be aware that the two Houses need to decide how the backlog of work required on this building is to be tackled—a project known as the restoration and renewal programme for the Palace of Westminster. R and R will be a major infrastructure programme that will not start in earnest until after 2020—well beyond the time frame of the budgets we are considering today. An independent options appraisal has been commissioned and is due to be published shortly after the election. Current thinking is that the two Houses might be asked to take a decision on their preferred option in spring 2016.
In the meantime, other buildings we occupy, including 1 Canon Row, the Norman Shaw buildings and 1 Parliament street, require significant refurbishment. This work will not only tackle the day-to-day problems that many colleagues have encountered—leaking toilets, rodents and other problems—but optimise the accommodation we occupy outside the Palace and complete that work before R and R begins. I warn hon. Members, therefore, that in the next Parliament many colleagues and staff will need to move offices as work on the various buildings proceeds. Office moves by House staff to facilitate this process and to co-locate Committee and Library staff have already begun.
Although much of the refurbishment work is capital spending, it can result in quite large accounting changes, largely because heritage and security issues mean that the value of refurbishment is not fully reflected in an increase in the book value of the buildings and that therefore a charge needs to be made. The Commission’s remit does not require the substantial notional charges or other resource consequences of the building work, such as decant space, to be met from within the core budget.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Given that the northern estate refurbishment project is likely to cost about £500 million and, on these capital budgets, is not likely to start in earnest until the end of next year, does my right hon. Friend think there is a danger that this big refurbishment project, the specifications for which are not yet even fully known, could run into the period when we will want to start the R and R project and that therefore the decant space, let alone the budget, might not be available?
John Thurso
My hon. Friend has highlighted a clear and obvious red risk to the R and R programme. The management are well aware of the risks, and discussions are already taking place about how they can be mitigated, but I know from the conversations he and I have had with Facilities staff that the critical nature of completing the northern estate prior to commencing R and R has been fully taken on board. The fact that they have taken it on board does not mean that they will make it happen, but if we have not at least understood the risks, we cannot take the mitigating action. At this stage, that is the best answer I can give.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
The full extent of the project is not yet known—for example, we do not know whether there will be a broadcasting studio in the new refurbishment—so does my right hon. Friend agree that it is now urgent that this work be undertaken so that we at least have a project on which proper quotes can be obtained? The delivery mechanism is not even known yet, and time is beginning to creep on for this very big project.
John Thurso
I understand that the Commission has reviewed the paper and that the initial decisions that needed to be taken to start that work have all been taken. As my hon. Friend knows, the decant space, which would have been one of the biggest blocks, has been acquired and is being fitted out and made available. My understanding is that work properly to scope the project is now under way. Clearly, in order to ensure the best value for the money spent, the work undertaken in scoping the project will reveal whether or not overall savings are available. At the moment, the budget is at its maximum because, quite properly, it has all the contingencies that could be put in. One hopes that proper scoping, including the point my hon. Friend raised, will lead to a tighter budget going forward and the work being completed on time. As he and I both know, however, public procurement is littered with projects for which aspirations were expressed that were not met. Hopefully, we have all learned lessons from that and will make sure that we deliver on time and on budget.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
For the benefit of those of us who are not entirely familiar with the Commons accounting procedures—I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said about the R and R costs; because it has not yet been agreed whether we will decant at all, those costs have not been included—could he say what, if any, costs in the preparatory period have been accounted for in the tables set out?
John Thurso
Obviously, the cost of the options appraisal that is currently going through is, in part, being paid for out of the current estimate and might well be paid for in part from a future estimate, but it is in the budget and properly accounted for. I believe that we are talking about a total of around £7 million. If I am wrong, I am sure I will get inspiration in due course and come back to it. I might even read my vast file and come up with the figure before the end of the debate.
It has been said that spending £7 million on working out what needs to be done is a great deal of money. All my experience of working in the private sector on the refurbishment of large buildings and all I have observed from big projects such as nuclear decommissioning is that the more professional money spent in advance in scoping a project, so that it is really understood, the more effective the actual spend. I suggest that every pound spent now on working out what the problems are is at least a pound spent going forward. If I am wrong, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.
In closing, I would like to commend again the professionalism of the House service and all those who work for us, and the tremendous improvements that have taken place in management systems and how things have been done over the years that I have been involved in the Finance and Services Committee, the Audit Committee and other bodies. This is the last occasion during this Parliament on which we will discuss the finances of the House. In commending the motion to the House, and in addition to the tributes I have paid on behalf of the House as a whole, I would like to express my personal gratitude for the support and help that I have received from the team, many of whom are watching us today. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to see this process through. The fact that there are in attendance fewer hon. Members than those who put their names down to speak today does not indicate any disinterest in the process, but is perhaps a reflection of the fact that we now publicise the plan so well that they do not feel it necessary to be present to suggest amendments to what we have put before them.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way to me a last time. He will be glad that he has given way this time because I would like to commend him for the way in which he has chaired our Committee so professionally. I have been a member of it for many years, and I think that the chairing of it in this Session has been outstanding.
John Thurso
I am very grateful, and that will do as a peroration. I commend the motion to the House.
John Thurso
I am most grateful to all Members who have taken part in the debate. It has been quite wide-ranging and had its light-hearted moments, but it has also been very serious, and I think that it does us credit to have discussed our affairs in that way. I will attempt to answer the questions that have been put directly to me, but if for any reason I miss one, I will certainly write to the hon. Member concerned.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked about security. I have in my brief, in huge, red, block capitals, the words, “You’re not allowed to talk about security in the Chamber”, so I will not. However, I will say that obviously our security is of paramount importance, and so too is value for money. I observe that many places similar to ours get that best security and best value from an in-House security force. I have no idea what the House might do, but I am sure that it will be based on the best evidence externally.
John McDonnell
I do not want to tempt the hon. Gentleman any further, but can he indicate what the time scale is for decision making on that?
John Thurso
Proposals on the principles of the way forward, rather than the detail, have been received and will be put to the Commission and the House Committee of the Lords at their next meetings. If the proposals are agreed to in principle, the detailed work will take place, but I would not anticipate any particular changes until well into next year. I hope that answer is sufficient for the hon. Gentleman. The director of security would probably give him a fuller briefing, if he would like to take him up on that.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) for his full account of the work of the Administration Committee. One of the features of this Parliament has been the Administration Committee and the Finance and Services Committee finding a very good way of working together, with the Administration Committee taking the lead on the services and the Finance and Services Committee taking the lead on the financial implications of that. I am most grateful for his contribution.
The shadow Deputy Leader of the House, or deputy shadow Leader of the House—I am not sure which way around it is—the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), asked a number of substantial questions. The first was where I got the figure of £2.7 million from. The answer is page 10 of the report, which states:
“In the current financial year, at an equivalent point in the electoral cycle, it is forecast to be £2.7 million.”
However, he is absolutely right to ask, as always, because the update is that the like-for-like total net cost for catering services was £1.2 million in the first six months of 2014-15, against £2.25 million in the equivalent period of 2013-14, a reduction of £1.5 million, or 47%. Certainly, that being £360,000 better than budget, it is to be hoped that that will be carried through to the end of the year. I hope that is a reasonable answer. I will write to him about the first question he asked during my speech, but I direct him to annex D on page 32 in relation to the costs of restoration and renewal.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned charities. I absolutely agree that charities should not be penalised. That is part of the policies that have been adopted, and I see no chance of their being changed.
With regard to raising funds from those who come to watch us in this Chamber, there has never been any suggestion, ever, that money be paid by our constituents and the public to view the legislative process, Select Committee hearings, or any other part of our work—and nor should there be. There is a very distinct difference between people coming as members of the public to engage with the political process and those who come as tourists and pay for the privilege. The two are absolutely not linked.
Thomas Docherty
We entirely agree about the difference between tourism and watching the democratic process, but will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Commission supports the position of the Standards and Privileges Committee and the Opposition that political fundraising should not be allowed on the premises?
John Thurso
Indeed; I was about to come to that. It is in the purview of the Administration Committee, principally, but I am fairly certain that the policy is rigid and there is no known attempt to change it.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of bicameral services. It is of course worth remembering that the other place is a sovereign House, and therefore, in all we do, we negotiate with it, but cannot force it. This is not a matter for those on the Treasury Bench; it is a matter for the two Houses to reach a conclusion on. The reasonableness that their lordships demonstrated in so rapidly agreeing to a common procurement service bodes well for the future. Certainly, in any sane world, the whole Palace would be run as one, and I am sure that one day we will get there.
This has been a good debate, and I commend all Members who have taken part in it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the First Report of the Finance and Services Committee, HC 757, and the draft medium-term financial plan for the House of Commons as set out in the Appendix to the Report; and endorses the intention of the Finance and Services Committee to recommend to the House of Commons Commission a House of Commons: Administration Estimate for 2015-16 in line with the financial remit set by the House of Commons Commission.
Retirement of the Clerk of the House
Viscount Thurso Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a great pleasure to rise to support the motion and add my voice to those who have already expressed appreciation for the dedicated and superb service that Sir Robert has given over so many years. His knowledge of the House, its procedures, its tradition, its history, is without peer, whether as an author of both amusing and serious volumes, or in the advice that he has given from the Table or to us privately. If I may just mention one small personal example, we now regularly debate on a substantive and amendable motion our finances and financial plan. It was an idea that was conceived by the Finance and Services Committee, but we could not find a procedural way of doing it. It was Sir Robert who found the way through, and therefore has, through his advice, enabled a valuable tool to come to the House’s management that we would not otherwise have had.
Others have paid tribute to his skill in the procedural areas and I wanted rather to record my appreciation for his work as Chair of the Management Board and leader of the House service and Accounting Officer, a less seen but none the less vital part of what he has done. This has been a quite extraordinary Parliament for innovation and change. There has been a wellspring of renewal that has come from a number of sources. It has come from ourselves through the Wright report, it is has come from the Chair, through the Chair of the Commission and other areas, and it has come from the House service.
Let us consider what is now happening in Parliament: the election of Select Committee members and Chairs; the revitalised opportunities for scrutiny; the new rules of governance in the House service, which many Members might not be aware of; the savings programme and its successor, continuous improvement; the diversity challenge; and the education and outreach programmes. Any one of those taken on its own would be a substantive management challenge, but taken together they represent a comprehensive management challenge that has required leadership demonstrating integrity, skill and competence. That is precisely what we have had from the Clerk.
I have had the opportunity to observe at first hand, at meetings of the Commission and of the Audit Commission of the House and at staff gatherings, how Sir Robert has sought to lead by example and from the front, but using a collegiate and collaborative style. He offers both challenge and support. He has been open to new ideas and has sought to mesh those new ideas with tradition and innovation, to give the best to the House service. He is the diversity champion on the Management Board, and as such he sought to widen access to the House service. He said at the last Commission meeting that he was particularly proud of the fact that all the apprentices in the scheme had found full-time work in the House service.
It is not easy to change a culture or to adapt to new ways, just as it is not easy to adapt to stricter financial times. Similarly, it is always a challenge to keep the customers happy, and if there is a bunch of customers who are more difficult to keep happy than us, I don’t know who they are. Sir Robert has managed to do all those things with singular success. He has led a transformation in the governance and financial management of the House service, which has moved from what could be described as an era of gifted amateurism to one of thoroughly competent professionalism. That is no mean feat, and I add my thanks to those of other Members for all that he has done. I wish his wife and family the very best in his retirement.
Respect Policy
Viscount Thurso Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
May I place on the record the thanks of the House of Commons Commission to the Chair of the Committee on Standards, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron), for his and the Committee’s work on this very important matter? As with everything it does, the Committee took it extremely seriously, put in a lot of work and came up with something that is thought through and detailed, and does exactly the job we had hoped it would do.
I want to pick up on two of the right hon. Gentleman’s points. The first is that it is absolutely essential that the policy is fair to all parties. It is vital that the House has a respect policy that looks after staff, but it is equally of the utmost importance that it is one in which Members have full buy-in and can feel confident, because otherwise it would not be fair to both sides. The second point is that there are no outstanding complaints at this time. By far the majority of Members treat the staff with the courtesy and respect that they so richly deserve. When it is made clear to them, most Members who have from time to time been errant in their behaviour immediately apologise to the members of staff concerned. The policy is as much a preventive measure as something to deal with a problem, and it puts us into the category of best practice employers. The way in which the right hon. Gentleman framed the opening of the debate is very much what the Commission had hoped for.
I will briefly set out why the policy is so important to the Commission. The Commission is of course the statutory legal employer of House staff, and it therefore has a very important duty of care towards them. Without effective policies on bullying and harassment, the House is more vulnerable to legal charges. There are of course policies in place for bullying and harassment of members of staff by their line managers and employers and for relations between Members and Members’ staff, but there is a gap between members of the House service and Members of the House in that, as was pointed out, we are rather more customers than employers. In that respect, the problem is that unlike the customers of most establishments, who can be shut out by the establishment’s owner if they are felt to be bullying or harassing the staff, it would be unthinkable for Members to be excluded. We therefore require a policy that works, and the respect policy seeks to address that situation.
Notwithstanding the fact that occurrences are very rare, some 7% of staff—nearly 100—experienced some form of harassment, according to a survey of staff, in the previous 12 months. For one in six of those affected, the harassment took the form of repeated incidents involving the same individual. The proportions are small, but that suggests that something like 20 to 25 House staff may experience ongoing problems with one or more individuals.
As the Committee’s report sets out, the policy initially agreed by the Commission in June 2011 proved to be flawed. It was based on policies used by other employers, but it did not fully take into account the special relationship that exists between House staff and Members. I reiterate that the Commission is very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for taking on this unenviable task. We believe that it has produced something that provides a proper mechanism for dealing with the rare circumstance of the most serious cases. The Committee has concluded that the revised policy is fair to all parties, as I have mentioned. On that basis, the Commission both thanks the Committee and commends the policy to the House for its endorsement.
I should note that, assuming the House agrees to the motion, the policy will come into effect immediately, but it will not be retrospective.
Kevin Barron
The hon. Gentleman says that the policy will not be retrospective. However, if somebody has a difficult relationship at the moment, something that has gone on during the past few days, weeks or months might be added to a complaint to the commissioner if she felt that it ought to be investigated. There are no such cases whatever to my knowledge, but just in case there are, I thought that we should mention that the policy would be retrospective in relation to such behaviour over many months or years that is considered at some point in the future.
John Thurso
I am most grateful to the Chair of the Committee for intervening to make that point. Of course, at the moment no complaints are extant, so there will be nothing retrospective about complaints that we know about and have dealt with. However, if a complaint is made now, it will of course be subject to this policy.
The House greatly values its staff and the exceptional work that they do in supporting us all. An effective respect policy is a very important part of delivering the Commission’s aim to be exemplary employer. I commend the policy to the House.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Viscount Thurso Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I appreciate the work that the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has done. He knows, because I said so on Second Reading, that I agree with his points about pre-legislative scrutiny. I, too, regret the haste with which the Bill has progressed. However, we are where we are, and I will not debate that but crack on as you have asked me to, Madam Deputy Speaker.
On Second Reading, I said that I supported the principles of the Bill but had severe concerns about some areas of detail. In Committee, I tabled amendments, some of which the Government listened to and took on board and others they have looked at again in the other place. During the Bill’s passage through the other place, I have met on numerous occasions and worked closely with my noble Friend Lord Tyler, who has done a power of good to the Bill and improved many of the most unsatisfactory elements by a considerable degree. He has also done an outstanding job in terms of the level of his engagement with the charitable and third sectors. He has worked tirelessly to talk to them, to understand their concerns, and to try to move things forward. When we come to debate the next group of amendments, I will mention many of the things that he has achieved. My noble Friends Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Wallace of Saltaire have also worked extremely hard to take on board people’s concerns.
As a result of the amendments that their lordships made and that the Government are accepting, this Bill has been transformed from the difficult Bill that we considered on Second Reading to what we now have before us. I thank my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House for the work he has done and for meeting me, colleagues and representatives of the charitable and third sectors several times. Underlying all this is the principle to which I still adhere—that we need much more transparency in lobbying and in the activities of third parties. The Bill is achieving that.
I tabled an amendment in this place covering special advisers though I did not press it. Lord Tyler has put through an excellent amendment. It is no secret that there is a divergence of opinion, if I can put like that, between the two coalition partners. My hon. Friends are very keen to include the amendment, while our partners perceive considerable dangers in doing so and wish to proceed at a rather slower pace. I fully expected the Government to reject my noble Friend’s amendment, but instead they have proposed a compromise that I am willing to accept. As has been evinced by Labour Members, the amendment uses the word “may”. They criticised that, but if we do not put such an enabling clause into a Bill, we cannot take action at a later stage. The amendment admits a concept and a principle that it is important to place in the Bill and it is a considerable step forward.
What does this mean in practice? There are two potential outcomes: first, the coalition partners discuss the measure, decide to implement it, and it is implemented this side of an election—an outcome devoutly to be hoped for but one for which I will not necessarily hold my breath. Secondly, at the next election I have an opportunity to go to the electorate and campaign for it, as would, I believe, all my hon. Friends.
John Thurso
I will quickly take two interventions and then no more because I am going to conclude.
Mark Durkan
Given that the Deputy Leader of the House was so vehemently dismissive of the case for including special advisers today, what gives the hon. Gentleman any reason to hope that he might be persuaded to do so in future?
John Thurso
I have always seen my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House as a very reasonable and persuadable gentleman. I have had many conversations with him, and I believe that he is moving in absolutely the right direction at good speed.
John Thurso
I am very aware that “shall”—that is probably the word I would look for—would achieve consensus across the House, but not on the Government Benches. I would rather stick with the consensus I have and that will go through than die in a ditch for something that will not.
That is my argument in a nutshell. I urge my hon. Friends to accept the very considerable concession from the Government, which takes us much closer to the objective that I seek to achieve.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I participate in this debate with great sadness, because within the last hour the funeral has taken place of Terry Butkeraitis, a miners’ leader and community organiser, and a legendary figure at the Glastonbury festival. Terry dedicated his life to the collective organisation of working people and proved that coal miners are as innovative, entrepreneurial and business-savvy as anyone else in society. Without question, Terry would have wanted me and his other friends to be in the Chamber to vote against further attacks on the unions, British values and our democracy.
When the Deputy Leader of the House listed what he claimed were the achievements of the Government’s openness, I thought I heard Terry heckling from that public gallery on high—demanding to know, if this Government are to show openness, where the documents relating to the miners’ strike are. We are still awaiting those documents.
Listening to the Deputy Leader of the House, I wondered whether his inability to explain the Bill in his 47 minutes was because he does not have a special adviser to tell him what it is all about. For some reason, I have never been a special adviser—I cannot understand why I have never been invited to apply for such a position; I do not know where they are advertised—but I have had opportunities over the years to have words with them. Frankly, the idea that any Member believes that special advisers and civil servants around Ministers do not have excessive influence over legislation is nonsense.
I will spare his blushes, because he did it for the right reasons, but one of the ministerial colleagues of the Deputy Leader of the House came up to me just last week and asked me to assist in tabling parliamentary questions to influence his civil servants and doubtless his special advisers to ensure that the legislation came forward more promptly.
John Thurso
I briefly repeat a comment I made on the previous group of amendments: the Bill left this place in an unsatisfactory state, but went to the Lords and had a considerable amount of work done to it. A huge number of the amendments made were either proposed by the Government after listening or accepted by them following a debate. I repeat that my noble Friend Lord Tyler was central to much of that process, and the Front Benchers Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, among others, did a splendid job in that regard.
When I spoke to Lord Tyler, he told me that he shared two of my major concerns, which he expressed very well, about the degree of bureaucracy and the degree of complexity, and everything he did was to try to remove bureaucracy or complexity. He made the very good point that the Bill builds on the PPERA, but that the process of engagement with charities and the third sector threw up the fact that many of them did not understand that earlier legislation and were not perhaps compliant with it. Therefore, if nothing else, this process has helped them to understand what is necessary.
I will touch quickly on the Lords amendments that have succeeded. The fundamental change was raising the registration rates to £20,000 for England and £10,000 for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We began with the position that the rates would be halved and they have now been doubled. That is a significant change. It has lifted the vast majority of smaller organisations and charities out of the legislation completely. That is a considerable concession by the Government and it has achieved a great deal. I make the small point, in parentheses, that I do not know why the rate for Scotland should be half that for England, but I shall move on quickly.
Charities also had a critical concern about coalitions. That has been dealt with by removing all the burdens from low-spending participants in a campaigning coalition and allowing the larger campaigners to provide a single report on their behalf. That has lifted a large potential burden. That change, along with other changes such as removing the requirement for nil returns and the review, has changed dramatically the way in which the Bill can be viewed. It is now much closer to achieving the principles that I want to see, which are greater transparency and accountability in third parties. It is also less heavy-handed with those who are not a target, such as small, local organisations and charities—virtually all charities are exempt.
This process has allowed good, informed criticism to be taken on board. It has also allowed us to flush out some very ill-informed criticism. I received an e-mail from a constituent yesterday urging me to support Lord Tyler, which of course is always a pleasure, because he wanted to continue to campaign against wind farms in our area and because he wanted to be able to campaign against the building of houses on the battlefield of Culloden if anybody ever suggested it. I was able to point out to him with complete certainty that those two things would never be covered by the Bill. There are many people out there who think that it does cover such matters. It is important to have the opportunity to dispel those ideas.
I will turn to the two principal amendments that I wanted to discuss. Lords amendment 108 removes a huge raft of things that were included in the proposal before their lordships. I took the trouble of finding schedule 3 in its unamended form. The Lords amendment relates to sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of paragraph 1, which include not only transport costs, but some pretty heavy bits of expenditure, such as public rallies. Their lordships were right to think that they had cut too far and too hard.
I urge my colleagues to support the Government in rejecting Lords amendment 108 for a simple procedural reason. If we accept it, that will be the end of the matter. However, if we do not accept it and send it back to their lordships, they can, through ping-pong, propose something that takes account of the justifiable concerns about transport and so forth but does not go as far as this amendment, which has clearly gone too far.
Mark Durkan
Lords amendment 108 does not take out the major costs of rallies and big events. It takes out only any costs in respect of remuneration or expenses that are payable to staff in relation to rallies. It does not relate to the overall costs of rallies, such as equipment and hiring space. Those would not be taken out by the amendment.
John Thurso
I am well aware of that. However, the staff costs, particularly in relation to sub-paragraphs (3) and (5), will be considerable, so they should be included. I would like to give their lordships the chance to think again about that.
On Lords amendments 26 and 27, I should explain that subsection (1) of proposed new section 2A in Lords amendment 26 is an amendment made on Report by my noble Friend Lord Tyler. It is a clear amendment that does exactly what it says on the tin, and I have almost complete sympathy with it. Lord Harries added subsections (2) and (3), which render the amendment unworkable. If I may paraphrase what Lord Tyler said, the lawyers have got hold of it and they have gone far too far. In particular, it is almost impossible to work out how one would begin to consider policing subsection (3), which is so defective that it has rendered what was a sound amendment almost completely ineffective.
To those of us who like legislating, it might be quite fun to look at different definitions, but I seriously contend—I hope the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who often helps me out on such matters, will agree—that subsections (2) and (3), particularly subsection (3), put a coach and horses through the very good amendment my noble Friend put through on Report in the other place. I suggest, therefore, that we reject it, because their lordships should be allowed to have another look at it. The intention was to simplify the Bill, making it easier and taking out bureaucracy. The amendment would, however, introduce massive complexity and a great deal of bureaucracy, and runs utterly counter to the other amendments that have been accepted. For that reason, I accept the Government’s view that it cannot be accepted and that their lordships should try again.
My final point is that there is an inconsistency. The limit is now £9,750, and the registration is £10,000. The fact is that any organisation in our constituencies could spend £9,000 and we would not know about it until after the election. It is a shame that we have not had a chance to address such an unintended consequence.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I just point out to the House that we have some 17 minutes left of this debate and that if each Member takes only just more than six minutes then everyone will have a chance to speak? If Members speak for longer than that, not everyone will have a chance to speak. It is up to Members to behave as they see fit.