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

Angela Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

That is why I start from my concern about the guillotine, because this is a Bill that in past decades—not past years, sadly—would have spent hours, days and weeks on the Floor of the House. It would have been preceded by a proper consultation, a cross-party agreement, a Green Paper and a White Paper—there was a White Paper, but as far as I could tell, it did not refer to part 2 at all. The Bill has not gone through what in my view would be a proper constitutional process and so will of course be subject to unintended consequences all over the place.

I accept that the Government will not have intended many of the consequences—I will come to some that they do intend in a minute. I accept that the deleterious consequences of the Bill were not intentional, but they arise directly from how the Government started the process. We had a brilliant report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, as chaired by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), which could have provided a basis. That Committee could have been the vehicle for the process. The hon. Gentleman is right: there will be deleterious consequences, most of them unintended, but most of them because of how we have addressed this Bill.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations has made it clear that it has similar concerns outstanding, despite the apparent movement by the Government on clause 26? It says in its brief:

“'We remain concerned that…voluntary organisations…may still be subject to ambiguous and damaging legislation. NCVO believes in a society where freedom of speech, the freedom to associate and the right to free and fair elections are all similarly inviolable.”

[Mr Davis]

Let me pick up that point and develop it a little—we are principally talking about clause 26, but it also relates to later clauses, which will be dealt with later in the day. It is in this context that the comments from the Electoral Commission—the primary executing agency of this Bill—come into play. It uses the words “significant regulatory uncertainty”, saying that parts of the Bill are “impossible to enforce” and pointing out “significant issues of workability”. What are we doing? We are transforming a bureaucratic organisation, with the powers to make rules on policy campaigning, as well as to relax those rules, tighten the rules, amend them retrospectively and then apply them retrospectively to freedom of speech—something that is, by definition, oppressive. By definition, that will chill freedom of speech. This Parliament has created a bureaucracy without the ability to alter, change or amend the rules before—it was known as the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. What we are creating in this Bill is—if we want a precursor of how this will play out—an IPSA for elections.

Let me turn to new clause 4. When it comes to political campaigns—whether electoral campaigns or other campaigns—the world is changing. Twenty-five years ago, I think only 8% of the population did not feel an affinity to one or other party. That figure is now 25%. All the political parties are declining—there is no party point in this; we are all dying on the vine as organisations. It is the nature of society that people’s interest in something tends to be more piecemeal than it was 25 or 50 years ago. This Bill is trying to swim upstream. It is trying to defy the nature of modern politics and the fact that political decision making now is by web-based campaigners, web-based petitions or 38 Degrees.

I get as annoyed as everyone else when I get campaigners from 38 Degrees writing to me—they say that they sometimes get dusty replies—but as Voltaire would have put it, I may disagree with what they say, but I defend to the death their right to say it. What part 2 does—not intentionally, but by accident—is jeopardise that entire tradition of our country. This is the home of free speech and this Chamber is the original defender of free speech, so what are we doing making these changes by accident? That is why I am concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Elan Jones]

I agree totally.

I am sure that some Members will have read the beautiful article by the Royal British Legion’s director general Dr Simpkins in The Daily Telegraph last week, which told how:

“In 1921, a year before a General Election, The Royal British Legion successfully ran its first campaign, lobbying the Government to ensure that three-quarters of those employed on relief works were veterans of the First World War.”

Our tradition of charities being allowed to campaign on political issues germane to their charitable activities is at the heart of British life and our democracy. It has been established in case law since 1917, a year before universal male suffrage. Well before women had the vote, Lord Normand, in the case of Bowman v. Secular Society, held that a society whose predominant aim was not to change the law could be charitable when its campaign to change the law was merely a subsidiary activity. That tradition has a long pedigree in this country and I do not believe that it should be for tinkering politicians, perhaps fearful of the impact of Cameron and Clegg non-mania in 2015, to play with it.

[Angela Smith]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument in defence of the right of charities to engage in civil society. However, does she agree that we are up against it on this point? Only eight months ago, one contributor to “ConservativeHome” said:

“When exactly ARE we going to stop funding these so called ‘charities’…? For example, ‘Shelter’ do absolutely nothing to practically help the homeless. Their sole purpose is to lobby government to increase the funding for housing and homelessness. And for this, they are funded BY the government! Crazy!”

[Susan Elan Jones]

Happily, I am not responsible for what people write on “ConservativeHome.”

The Prime Minister once spoke the rhetoric of a big society and a coming together of hearts and minds, yet today we are sitting in this Chamber to discuss a Bill that could mean that a consortium of cancer charities has problems campaigning with realistic staffing levels whereas pro-tobacco lobbyist Lynton Crosby has nothing more to worry about than how much tobacco to put in his pipe. This remains a calamitous, bureaucratic Bill and should be replaced by one that deals with the villains of the piece and does not attack the voluntary sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I have listened carefully to a number of contributions, and genuine concerns have been expressed. I do a huge amount of work with Mind and Rethink on mental health, and with my 100% support and advice, in the run-up to the next general election they will be setting a number of challenges for the main political parties about how people with mental health problems are treated. They will be seeking positive responses to those challenges, and I need categorical assurance from the Minister and those on the Front Benches that such activities will not be caught by the Bill before us.

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

To add to that point, does the hon. Gentleman think that MPs’ websites with links to charities might find themselves included in a charity’s costs if they are considered to be promoting a particular charity’s position in the run-up to an election?

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Lady makes a constructive intervention, and no doubt the Minister will want to respond. Political engagement at whatever level in almost every form is greatly to be encouraged. I hope that the Government listen to the real concerns expressed today, and that that level of engagement is not suppressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

That is the kind of issue that can be taken up with the Charity Commission and the Electoral Commission under existing legislation to establish whether that particular activity constituted electioneering. Nothing that we are proposing would affect that.

The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North seek, as previous amendments have done, to strike a balance between the reasonable intent of expanding the range of activities that incur controlled expenditure, and addressing concerns over the activities of charities and voluntary organisations being caught. Amendment 131 seeks to revise the definition of “for election purposes” as activity that can reasonably be regarded as promoting or procuring the success of a party or candidate. As the Government have indicated, we support the principle of that aim, and we will table amendments on Report which I hope will address that concern to the hon. Gentleman’s satisfaction.

A further amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman proposes that donations by a third party to a third party coalition group should count towards the donor third party’s spending limits. That seems to suggest that such a grouping would register as a separate, new third party and be subject to the wider controls of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The intention appears to be to repeal section 94(6) of PPERA. That provision stipulates that when two or more third parties work together as a group or coalition in pursuance of a common plan, the whole of the expenditure they incur as part of that coalition must count against each third party’s spending limit separately. However, the drafting of the amendment would not explicitly repeal section 94(6). The amendment also fails to consider that removing the existing provisions on acting in concert would remove a key anti-avoidance measure from PPERA. If total spending by a group of third parties acting as part of a common plan was not counted in full against each individual third party’s limits, it would allow third parties to form many coalitions on single issues in order to evade their spending limits. That would remove a vital safeguard from the integrity of the rules.

[Angela Smith]

Has the Minister considered the position of the Wildlife Trust in this context? It is not a single organisation but a coalition of trusts working up and down the country; it is a coalition of organisations working as a single body.

[Tom Brake]

Clearly we have. This comes down to the issue of whether the Wildlife Trust, which I suspect has members drawn from all parties and none, would as part of that coalition campaign in support of a political party or of a number of party candidates. If it did not intend to do so, it would not be covered by the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

If I had not taken so many interventions I would have finished. The key point is immeasurably simple. There is a duty of care with taxpayers’ money. There is a risk of impropriety if it is spent by third parties on elections. That impropriety is a greater temptation to a sitting Government who control the purse strings than it is to the Opposition who do not. It is something that ought not to be allowed. We do not fund our political parties for their campaigning. We ought not to fund third parties. We ought to make it illegal.

[Angela Smith]

May I start my comments on clause 27 by declaring a non-financial interest in organisations in the third sector? I am the chair of the conservation and wildlife all-party group, the secretariat for which is provided by the Wildlife Trusts, and I am a vice-president of the League Against Cruel Sports. I am proud to be associated with both organisations.

Clause 27 depends for its validity on clause 26, which we have just discussed. In my opening remarks, therefore, I want to make it absolutely clear that if the Government’s intention is to rewrite clause 26 at some point—as they have indicated this afternoon that they will—the Opposition are justified in not supporting the subsequent clauses that depend on it. The Electoral Commission made this point in its latest briefing notes:

“We recommend that once the definition of controlled spending is confirmed, the Government and Parliament should consider again what spending limits will provide the appropriate balance between freedom of expression and controls on undue influence.”

In that context, the Opposition will find it difficult to support clause 27 as it stands. Indeed, we still fail to understand how the Government can support their own clause 26 when they considered in the previous debate that it needed rewriting, but there we are. We will listen carefully not only to the Minister but to the esteemed Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen).

We support taking the big money out of politics and we support sensible controls on the money spent by third parties. That is why we introduced the cap on third party spending, ensuring that we would never be like the United States, where unaccountable organisations can spend vast sums of money. We have no objection to a tough cap on third party spending.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the provisions in the Bill do not even attempt to tackle the very issues she is talking about? In the 2010 general election, the main political parties spent £31 million; third parties spent £3 million on campaigning activities in that year.

[Angela Smith]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that I will come to in due course.

This Bill puts the cart before the horse. Our contention is that this is the wrong way to tackle the very serious issues at stake and that what we actually need is an approach that focuses, first, on taking the big money out of politics and then places changes to third sector funding in the context of this much more fundamental and necessary reform of election funding. Let us be clear: that is the right way to tackle the issue because, to put it quite simply, the big money is not in third party spending. Political parties nationally—as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has said—spent £31 million in the 2010 election, compared with just £3 million by third party campaigners. The biggest third party spender spent just 4% of the £17 million spent by the Conservative party.

While the Government claim that this is an attempt to take the big money out of politics, they do not even mention the real source of the problem: the amounts spent on election campaigning by political parties. If the Government are serious about taking the big money out of politics, they would be looking at a reduction in the overall expenditure cap for political parties during election years. If the Conservative party, in particular, is serious about taking the big money out of politics, it will withdraw this mess of a Bill and commit to meaningful reform. This is a bad, and badly drafted, Bill and it is very unlikely that, however much it is amended, it will stand up to serious scrutiny as a fair and workable piece of legislation. It is a Bill found wanting, partly because of the lack of rigorous consultation and partly because of the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny, as the Chair of the Select Committee pointed out.

[Charlie Elphicke]

On the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), is it the hon. Lady’s position that organisations in receipt of public funds should be allowed to spend the money on election campaigning or that they should not?

[Angela Smith]

I have noted the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this issue in the past. I point to the answers given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland earlier: funding agreements between the state, local government and charities tend to make it virtually impossible for charities spending public funds to spend them on any other purpose.

This is a dog’s dinner of a Bill and, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said a short while ago, even that description of the Bill is an insult to dog nutrition. So let us be clear: our invitation today to the Conservative partners in the coalition is to place reform of third party spending in elections clearly in the context of a cross-party consensus on political party funding and political party spending. We need to see a cap on donations to political parties—our leader has suggested a cap of £5,000—and we need to see meaningful reductions in spending limits by political parties in general elections. We need to stop this spending race, which sees spiralling sums of money spent on successive elections. No more dodgy dinners in Downing street; no more bankrolling of the Conservative party by a tiny number of wealthy City donors. The Electoral Commission itself has made it clear that reform of third party spending is needed, but not like this. Clause 27 has caused huge consternation in the third sector, because if passed into law, it would play a major part—along with the other clauses in part 2—in effectively gagging the third sector in election periods. The changes will have a chilling effect on our national debate in the year before the election. That cannot be right for any modern, 21st-century democracy.

[Mr Anderson]

In an earlier debate, our hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) raised with the Deputy Leader of the House, who is no longer in his place, the scenario in which charities would not be allowed to campaign in his constituency, yet political parties could spend £250,000 there, as they did, trying to undermine him and make him lose his seat. Is that not the real scandal of this Bill? It does nothing to address that concern. It will affect charities, who have a genuine right to lobby, but do nothing about such abuses of power.

[Angela Smith]

Our hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) articulated clearly the feelings of parts of many organisations in the third sector, who feel aggrieved that they are being picked on, as it were, in this Bill while the big spending takes place elsewhere.

The sceptical among us could be forgiven for thinking that in part 2, and clause 27 in particular, the Government appear to be trying to insulate their record and policies from legitimate democratic criticism. For example, a number of recent high-profile third sector campaigns could well have been stymied if this Bill had been in place. They include campaigns such as Stonewall’s equal marriage campaign or the Royal British Legion’s military covenant campaign. Indeed, as has been made clear on a number of occasions this afternoon, the National Union of Students could find it difficult to hold Members to account in the forthcoming election period.

It is perfectly possible that the Bill could also prevent the coalition of charities campaigning for plain packaging for cigarettes from making its case in the forthcoming election period. That is how serious the effect of this Bill could be. Cancer Research UK and the British Heart Foundation could suffer the dampening effect of this Bill, and thereby become reluctant to make their case, while at the same time Lynton Crosby—a lobbyist for the tobacco industry—is working from the heart of the Government machine in Downing street. At a time when trust in politics is at an all-time low, why do the Government want to restrict the one part of our politics that is doing a good job in engaging people from all backgrounds in our political process? Why do the Government want to risk lowering the reputation of our political culture even more?

Clause 27 also illustrates a worrying trend on the right in politics—the challenge to the role of charities in the Prime Minister’s big society. Let us take the recent speech by the Justice Secretary, who proposed in an article in the Daily Mail recently that we ought to curtail the use of judicial review because—in his words—

“judicial reviews are launched in order to try to disrupt Government policies, such as those initiated by anti-HS2 campaigners or by those who believe it is right that taxpayers’ money should be spent on subsidising people in social housing to keep spare rooms.”

More and more, we are seeing challenges to a vibrant civil society—challenges that, if acted on, would contribute to an insulation of Government from the crucial checks and balances needed in a healthy democracy.

[Lady Hermon]

I would like to draw the hon. Lady’s attention to a problem with how clause 27 will apply to Northern Ireland—I should have intervened on her a little earlier, but I am sure she will not mind my intervening now. She will have noticed that the limit on controlled expenditure will be reduced in Northern Ireland from £5,000 to £2,000—not £2,500, but £2,000. I would like her and her colleagues—and, of course, the Minister—to address the fact that charities like the National Trust are national, covering the United Kingdom as a whole. Will the National Trust’s national expenditure or its expenditure in Northern Ireland be caught by the limit?

[Angela Smith]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. The reduced limits for the devolved Administrations relate not just to Northern Ireland but to Scotland and Wales. I do not think the Government have thought clearly about the fact that many third sector organisations in the UK are UK-wide, so I take her point.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend think that there is even a modicum of reason behind the proposal to reduce thresholds based on the fear among those on the Government Benches that an individual might decide to campaign on a third party basis and put large amounts of money into such a campaign? The legislation might catch the organisations that she has described, but does she agree that it would be very easy for an individual to be vague about such arrangements, as has happened in America with third party political action committees and related individual-funded organisations? In such circumstances, the provisions would not work.

[Angela Smith]

I will comment on the reduction to the thresholds presently. Suffice it to say at this moment that the Electoral Commission itself has suggested that the thresholds might even need raising, rather than lowering.

There is a real suspicion out there in the third sector that, unfortunately, many Conservatives would like to see charities pare down their role, shrink their campaigning brief and concentrate instead on welfare provision. That fear has already been borne out in this debate. There is nothing wrong with charities providing help and support for the sick, the young and the old, or for animals in distress—indeed, there is everything right about it—but they also need the freedom to campaign for the legislation and funding that are necessary to make the world a better place.

We have heard the views of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) on the campaigning role of charities and voluntary organisations. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said recently that

“many charities need to renew their sense of mission, spending less time at conferences and more time valuing their volunteers. They should concentrate resources on helping people rather than campaigns, lobbying and administration”

and the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel)—

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Angela Smith]

Of course.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Lady will know that I was expressing my concern that the chief executive of Save the Children had had a pay rise of some 22% since 2010, while many of our constituents have been struggling to get by. It is right that we should ask the charities to refocus on their front-line mission and to help people rather than helping themselves.

[Angela Smith]

I believe that the issue of third sector chief executives’ pay is being used as a smokescreen to conceal a real attack on the sector’s legitimate role of holding elected representatives to account and campaigning for the changes in society that it believes need to take place.

[Charlie Elphicke]

There is a legitimate role for third sector organisations in making their case to elected representatives, as they have done, but some charities’ pay is out of control and their administrative expenses are too high. In those cases, not enough help is reaching the front line. I am concerned about the alleviation of poverty and about helping people in need on the front line, and it is really important that charities should have those values—

[The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Order. I think we are starting to stray from the matter before us.

[Angela Smith]

Thank you for your guidance, Sir Edward. All I would say is that many third sector organisations listening to this debate will have been very interested to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Dover.

Some—not all—Members on the Government Benches are clearly intent on curtailing the third sector’s crucial work of shining a light on inequality where it exists, and of campaigning and highlighting the need for changes in public policy, based on their experience and expertise.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

One organisation that has made a great contribution, under the previous Government as well as this one, is the Royal British Legion. It has campaigned for the rights of veterans, and I was on the receiving end of some of that campaigning when I was a Minister in the previous Government. Its effective lobbying has changed the law under both Governments. Is it not ironic that Conservative Members who have signed up to its campaigns are now saying that such campaigning should no longer take place?

[Angela Smith]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Indeed, it would be interesting to trawl the websites of many Members to see the lists of charities that they support on a regular basis. I imagine that every Member of the House supports the Royal British Legion and its campaigning work, and would want that work to continue.

As I said earlier, clause 27 plays its own role in gagging the third sector by reducing the threshold for registration and reducing spending limits on controlled expenditure. Under amendment 66, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), the threshold for registration would be returned to the status quo, thereby protecting smaller charities and community groups from being caught by this legislation, making it virtually impossible for them to participate in the democratic process.

[John Mann]

On unintended consequences, has my hon. Friend considered the implications of the Oldham East and Saddleworth election petition judgment, whereby the number of votes influenced by the action was not a consideration? By implication, the amount of spending by which one might breach the rules would not in itself be the issue; rather, it would be whether there had been a breach. The complexity of the rules could lead to election petitions and to elected Members being thrown out of the House.

[Angela Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend. What he said provides further evidence to show how this Bill was not properly thought through before it was brought before us. It shows, too, the amount of work that should have been done and the issues that should have been sorted out before it was brought here.

[Helen Goodman]

I am sure my hon. Friend is aware—I hope so—of the paper produced by the House of Commons Library, which shows that under the Bill’s proposals, the limits on third party spending in Wales are coming down to £24,000 and to £10,000 in Northern Ireland. That would mean that in Wales and Northern Ireland, it would be impossible to employ anybody in a voluntary sector organisation to run any kind of campaign for one year in four.

[Angela Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend on that point.

As I was saying, our amendment is designed to return us to the status quo on thresholds and to help protect smaller charities and groups from being caught by legislation, making it virtually impossible for them to participate in the democratic process. That must be right, and the Electoral Commission has suggested, as I pointed out earlier, that the threshold should be raised. Let me quote from the evidence given by Jenny Watson to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee:

“We said again in our written evidence that one practical thing that could be done to make a difference to the Bill would be to raise the thresholds at which people have to register, and we have a particular concern about that as it relates to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, because those thresholds are low.”

Let me ask the Government why the voice of the regulator is being so badly ignored in respect of this legislative process. Why is the Electoral Commission being ignored? We will listen with interest to the Minister’s response on that point.

As far as the limits for controlled expenditure are concerned, our position is clear: the limits need to be defined in the context of meaningful reform of the funding of political parties and of their ability to throw big money at election campaigns. In other words, the Government need to withdraw the Bill and to rethink. They need to enter into meaningful negotiations with the other political parties and to commit to proper consultation and scrutiny of proposals as they emerge, in relation to both political parties and the third sector.

In concluding my remarks, I ask the Minister to think again about not just specific points in this clause, but something more fundamental. The Minister is a Liberal Democrat; I ask him to take back to his Conservative partners the message that the Government’s whole approach to this issue needs to be looked at again. “Think again” is our message to the Government, who should commit to discussions designed to produce meaningful reform within which we can place sensible changes to the rules on third party funding—changes that we can consult on with confidence, knowing that we have done the right thing overall in changing our politics for the better.

[Mr Allen]

Let me, just for a moment, return to our earlier debates, and ask Members in all parts of the Chamber to accept with good grace the Minister’s offer to rewrite clause 26. I do not want any Member in any part of the Chamber to talk about U-turns, or to gloat. I think that the Government have realised that the Bill is flawed in considerable part, and that, to their great credit, they have recognised that clause 26 needs to be rewritten along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) and by my Committee.

No such magnanimity, however, can be extended to clause 27. Clause 27 is the clause that is the most obnoxious to the charities that many of us support and view with great pride. Two things are being attempted. The first is to tie up those charities in red tape, with massive, indeed unprecedented amounts of reporting, and the second is to impose limits on their spending that are far more fierce and far more rigorous than those that currently apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chairman]

The hon. Gentleman is a very courteous Member. He will want to know that six other Members are trying to speak, and the Minister, so I know he will want to allow other Members to get in—but there is an intervention.

[Angela Smith]

My hon. Friend’s hypothetical example prompts me to point to the supreme irony that the Bill has pulled together the Countryside Alliance and the League Against Cruel Sports in opposition to it.

[Mr Allen]

I am conscious of the justified blandishments of the Chair. I had assumed that I was being required to speak to take us somewhere towards the Division, but I will conclude quickly.

First, thresholds for registration are in clause 27. My Select Committee said:

“In the absence of any evidence that there is a need to lower the threshold for third parties to register with the Electoral Commission, we recommend that the Government revert to the existing levels. To this end, we recommend that clause 27…is removed from the Bill.”

Secondly, as far as the Committee could see, there was no justification for the new lower spending limits. Witness after witness came before the Committee, and not a single one said, “This is fantastic. We have been waiting for ever for the Government to do this on spending limits.” The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said:

“The cost limits are reduced in a way that is neither explicable, nor relevant.”

The NCVO does not know the basis on which the Government decided on the new limits for expenditure, adding:

“One may suggest that they are arbitrary.”

That is why we set our face against those limits, and we say to colleagues in all parts of the House that until there is a proper justification of that, we feel that clause 27 should not progress.

Finally, as a chair of a charity and a trustee, I will remake the point that I made the other day in respect of clause 27. If there is even the faintest question mark over the hard-earned money of my charity, due to the possibility that we may get sucked into legal action and have to pay someone else’s costs on a six-figure basis, I am looking at having to sack people. I am not going to do that. It is no good, Minister, restraining, by some technicality, something that I have worked very hard to create.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

I was sent spontaneous e-mails on the Bill by a number of constituents. I believe that a number of Members of the House received such spontaneous e-mails, which of course had not been written by anyone else whatsoever. In response to those e-mails, I set out my position on charities and my concerns about pay in the boardroom and the amount spent on administration. The shadow Minister said that she is certain that people will be listening to the debate and will e-mail me right away to criticise me for the position I have taken, but many of the considered and detailed replies I received from those constituents who had e-mailed me with the so-called spontaneous e-mails said, “Actually, we see where you are coming from on charities and agree with your concerns. We think that they are important and that it is legitimate to raise them.” Far from what the shadow Minister thought the reaction would be, I had considerable support from people who, as she knows, would not naturally be supportive of me, or indeed my election.

[Angela Smith]

I feel the need to respond. I do not think that I said that third sector charities would be e-mailing the hon. Gentleman; I said that they would be listening very carefully to what he was saying in his interventions.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. I think it is important that we represent our constituents. Following my direct responses to the 38 Degrees e-mails, many constituents replied and said that they saw that as a matter of great concern and that they agreed and had considerable sympathy with the position I had taken. I must say that I was surprised by that support. Having been forthright in my response, I did not expect to find much support from that particular quarter. I think that there is a message for Opposition Members to take away and consider, just as there is for Government Members. State-funded activists are engaged in direct lobbying of politicians and indirect lobbying of the public using taxpayers’ money, and I think that blurs the distinction between private and public action.

I also think that we all have a trust to uphold, in relation to the votes of supply and the impost we put on our constituents for the funding of Government and public money, to ensure that it is spent in a way that is targeted at particular social purposes and need. My concern is that if taxpayers’ money then finds its way back into arguing for more money to be spent on particular things, or indeed on the election of particular candidates or parties at an election, that is an abuse of the public trust that we are sent here to represent.