| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3 Mar 2010 : Column 290WH—continued
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on both counts. Why, therefore, do the Lib Dems allow Mr. Nicholson to get away with such blatant flouting of their policy? It is entirely clear to me that we need local spending limits between elections, and I regret that no party has taken action to restore such limits. We need to return to the position we were in before 2000. Nevertheless, when there has been excessive spending by candidates standing
in opposition, the communications allowance has at least offered a modest means of achieving some balance in communications with constituents.
It is right in principle that MPs should be resourced to inform their constituents about their work in Parliament and in the constituency; such communications can encourage political engagement. I regret that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority seems intent on imposing draconian limits on MPs' communications, and I hope that this debate will help to change its mind.
Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. I need to make one or two points clear. I have been very tolerant with the opening speech, allowing it to get rather broad and cover inter-election campaign funding. Having done that with the opening speech, I have to be more tolerant than I intended to be with other contributions.
I must also remind hon. Members that this is a 90-minute debate, which must finish at 4 o'clock, but, as Chair, I am required to ensure that, 30 minutes before that, I enable the first of the three winding-up speeches from the Front Benchers to begin. We have, therefore, less than 26 minutes left for general debate. Three written submissions have already been given to me from Members who hope to catch my eye, and they are all from one side of the House. There are none from the other side of the House, although it would appear that a number of Members on that side want to speak.
I shall start with the first written submission, and then go on to a random sample. I call Gordon Prentice.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I had been given to understand from documents that were provided to us as Members that for debates in Westminster Hall no benefit or advantage was given to those who submitted such written advance notice, and that we would be treated equally if we simply came and made it clear that we wanted to speak, by standing up as we are doing now. Will you please clarify whether that is the case?
Frank Cook (in the Chair): The hon. Gentleman seeks an explanation from me of my decision. Normally, the Chair would refuse to do that, but I do not mind making it clear today that Members who have shown the courtesy of contacting the Chair deserve a little more consideration, in my view. I call Gordon Prentice.
Mr. Tyrie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Cook.
Frank Cook (in the Chair): I hope that hon. Members realise that this is, of course, taking up time for debate. I call Andrew Tyrie-briefly please.
Mr. Tyrie: Mr. Cook, will you clarify whether this now sets a precedent for how people are called in Westminster Hall debates?
Frank Cook (in the Chair): That is hardly a point when a general election is so imminent and I may not be here afterwards. I call Gordon Prentice.
3.4 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): I have a lot to say, but I shall compress it because I know that so many colleagues on both sides of the House want to make a contribution. I begin by saying that what happens in Britain is not unique. I know a lot about Canada-I chair the all-party Canada group. Canadians can mail their MPs without putting a stamp on the envelope. Canadian MPs can send out annual reports; they can do what we do here, so what happens in Britain is not unique. The big problem that we face is that there are effectively no spending limits except in the immediate run-up to a general election-in the six months before it. Before that, however, anything goes. We have heard about Streatham.
Perhaps I am making a party political point here, but my jaw dropped last night when my colleague, the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), told me that his Conservative challenger spent £142,000 in the last three months of 2009-that is documented in Electoral Commission figures. There is no level playing field-I hate using that term. It is possible, and we are seeing it happen, to buy an election. We heard about the difficultly of contacting constituents in small inner-city seats. Many years ago, I was the leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council and I know the constituency like the back of my hand. There is a flip side, however: my Pendle constituency is 65 square miles. I do not know how many Hammersmith and Fulhams you could put in that. It is impossible to contact my constituents by just walking up the farm track-there are not the hours in the day. The way to contact people in a far-flung rural constituency is to pay people-Royal Mail-to do it.
Mr. Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prentice: I have my own speech to make, and if the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Cook, he will be able to make his own.
When the communications allowance was brought in, I did not use it for the first year. I felt uncomfortable, to be honest. Since then, I have been 545th in the list. In the first year, I spent £2,349, on surgery advertisements and so on, but people were saying to me, "What on earth are you doing? You're doing nothing down at Westminster, but we've been getting all this stuff from Andrew Stephenson". I was getting letters in my office addressed to Andrew Stephenson MP, the MP for Pendle. He may well be the MP in a couple of months' time. It is not just people in this room who are listening to this debate, it is people outside as well, and he could very well be the next MP.
I used my communications allowance on five occasions, in October 2008, and in January, April, October and December 2009. My communications were not bland at all. There are no photographs of me cuddling babies, or with police officers-none of the usual stuff. In my latest parliamentary report, I complain in the article "Waiting for the ambulance" that in the West Craven part of my constituency people were having to wait ages for an ambulance, even when their situation was life-threatening. That probably did a lot of damage to my Labour Government. In an article in the previous issue, entitled "Afghanistan: What now?", I talked about my position on Afghanistan, saying that
"the bloody conflict in Afghanistan drags on"
and that it is now time to set a clear exit strategy. That is me speaking, not the Labour Government. In the issue before that there was the article, "Royal Mail: Save it-don't sell it"; that is not bland communication. I was arguing against the position of my own Government. I want to see Royal Mail stay in public ownership. That is not bland; it is letting people know my views. Another article was entitled, "Fat Cats slated". I had to pay money back to the Commons authorities for that.
There was one anonymous complaint. The Commons authorities could not tell me who had made the complaint, but it was about two paragraphs that I had written in one of my reports. I hope that you will allow me to read them both out, Mr. Cook, because they are, as we now know, absolutely factually correct. The first paragraph stated: "I told the Commons"-I was quoting from a Commons speech-
"the Conservative peer and donor, Lord Laidlaw, was ennobled in 2004 after promising to become a UK resident for tax purposes. He reneged on that promise and lives in tax exile in Monaco."
That is a fact, but I had to pay money back for saying what I did. In the next paragraph, I said:
"Another Conservative peer, Lord Ashcroft openly admits bankrolling local Conservative Associations yet refuses to say if he pays UK taxes. He is based in the Central American tax haven of Belize."
As a result of those two paragraphs, I had to reimburse the Commons authorities. [Interruption.] No, I will not go down that road; everyone knows about Lord Ashcroft.
Mr. Binley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prentice: I will not. I have a lot of ground to cover, and the Member can make his own speech.
My fifth parliamentary report talked about hard choices regarding DNA, and I made it clear that my position is probably more akin to the Liberal Democrat position than the Labour Government's position. When people read my parliamentary report, therefore, they say, "Whatever his faults, this guy Gordon Prentice isn't a cipher. He's not just telling us what Labour Whips are telling him to say." They get an idea of where I am coming from.
Those were my five parliamentary reports. Now, if you will allow me, Mr. Cook, I will whistle through some material from Andrew Stephenson, who will probably be the MP in a couple of months. I have a copy of his leaflet "Andrew Stephenson Reports Back", which has just come out. I also have the February and March edition of his "Pendle Matters", which the Royal Mail delivered to all 37,000 households in Pendle; it talks about the "Year of Change" and runs to four pages. Another edition, which was delivered free to 37,000 households, talks about "Putting Pendle on the Map" and has a picture of the Leader of the Opposition. That is all since Christmas.
The December 2009 edition of "Pendle Matters", which was delivered to 37,000 households, says, "Shop Local"-unfortunately, it was printed in Guildford. I also have the October 2009 and August 2009 editions of "Pendle Matters", which were delivered to every household in my constituency. The headline in one edition reads "Cameron spells out a Plan for Change". The headline in another, which was delivered to 37,000 households,
talks about "Transport in the North". Another edition has the headline "Tackling the Credit Crunch" and runs to four pages.
Mr. Binley: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. May I ask a simple question? Are we allowed to use such props in the House?
Frank Cook (in the Chair): There is a convention on the Floor of the House that visual aids are not allowed. I cannot see what is on the leaflets that the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is holding up, so they are hardly visual aids. However, I can count and I can see that there is a discrepancy in terms of acreage and number, and I await his conclusions on that. I must remind hon. Members that we have about 17 minutes before I call the Front Benchers.
Mr. Prentice: I do not want to test the patience of colleagues, so let me just say that I have too many leaflets to go through; there are three years' worth. It is not just "Pendle Matters" that is being delivered; there is loads of other stuff as well. There are six-page booklets, which look like Hello! magazine, the ads in the local papers and so on.
Let me come to my peroration. I think I have demonstrated conclusively that the next election is being bought. Election spending should be controlled; if it is not, it will be totally unfair, and rich people will be able to determine who sits in this House.
3.14 pm
Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con): The right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), who obtained the debate, has made a huge contribution to this place. He is one of the outstanding Members of Parliament I have come across in my time here-somebody of unfailing humour, whether things are going well or badly for him. He has never rubbed my nose in it when my party is doing badly, and he has always had a big smile on his face, even when his party seems to be on its uppers.
Having said all that, I am a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should choose this of all subjects for his parliamentary swansong. As far as I could tell, he adduced six points in defence of the communications allowance. The first was democratic accountability. That is the sort of the phrase that is bandied around quite cheaply, but generally means very little. By listening to him, I did not really discover where exactly accountability would be increased as a consequence of the allowance.
The right hon. Gentleman then said that the allowance would act as a counterweight to Lord Ashcroft's "attempted purchase of parliamentary seats." I understand his point, and I will discuss it in a little more detail in a moment.
The right hon. Gentleman then said that it would rebuild trust. But I take the view that spending large sums of public money on self-promotion-I think that that is how people perceive it-is more likely than not to have the opposite effect, if it has any effect at all.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the allowance was important for seats with transient electorates, but that seems a rather curious point. Does it mean that the grant should be graded, so that Members in seats with the lowest churn have the lowest grant and those in seats with the highest churn have the highest grant? I found that idea extremely bizarre. The level playing field we need is not between seats, but within seats
between people campaigning. Presumably, a transient electorate is as difficult for the challengers to handle as it is for the sitting MP.
In a very revealing phrase, the right hon. Gentleman said that the allowance is at least-I hope that I have got this exactly right-"needed to remind people that they do at least have an MP in place". I should hope that any MP who is doing his job would find a way of enabling at least some of his constituents to discover that they have representation at Westminster, so I do not find that argument convincing either.
The right hon. Gentleman's final argument was that the allowance is a modest means of achieving balance, which goes back to the point that I made a moment ago. I hope that I have already answered that argument a little. It is the balance within the constituency, not between constituencies, that matters.
I think that the communications allowance is a scandalous waste of public money. it was right to abolish it. It is a form of incumbency grant. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, has said as much in unequivocal terms, and I agree with him. Incidentally, the incumbency value is measurable; it is a statistical fact. It is between one and three percentage points.
Martin Linton (Battersea) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyrie: I will not. If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I will carry on, although that is purely for reasons of time.
The incumbency value is between one and three percentage points, but it falls away after the first re-election and scarcely shows up in the statistics after that. Interestingly, it has scarcely changed for 50 years-whatever we put in place, it seems to remain pretty much the same. Although people want the communications allowance to entrench incumbency, it does not seem to have that effect-nor, indeed, does the campaigning on the other side of the ledger.
The extra money spent in marginal seats in 2001 and 2005 for the Conservative party had the reverse effect to the one intended. In fact, the swing was two percentage points lower in 2001 in the seats where the most money was spent, which I find statistically significant. Furthermore, we later discovered from Labour literature that the Labour party had abandoned those seats, so there was not even a cancelling-out effect, which is normally the key reason why it is so difficult to identify the benefits to local campaigning.
My objection to the communications allowance is not that it may actually be effective-although it could become effective at a future date-but that it is state funding of political parties by the back door. If we want state funding-I am not against it in principle, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will attest-we should explain to the electorate what we are doing and vote it in, not supply it by the back door.
Incumbency, in any case, is already being bolstered by increases in parliamentary secretarial allowances, particularly where MPs have relocated a large number of their staff to their constituencies, where I strongly
suspect a number of them are engaging in campaigning rather than constituency work. I very much hope that IPSA will investigate that and clamp down on any malpractice of that type in the months and years ahead.
The right hon. Member for Streatham argued that the communications allowance is needed to offset Conservative funding in marginal seats. He emphasised that point at some length, but by making it he let the cat out of the bag and revealed his desired purpose for the communications allowance. Now we know that, in his view, the communications allowance should be and is a campaigning fund-exactly what it is designed not to be-and not the constituency allowance that he and his party dressed it up as when they encouraged the House to allow it.
The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, upset that a rich donor is seeking to influence a British election by pouring money into target seats. I, too, am upset about that and about the funding being provided by a small number of big donors, including trade union bosses and corporations, as well as rich individuals. They should all go; they should all be got rid of. We need a donations cap, and I should like it to be set well below the level of £50,000 that I set out in a document, to obtain compromise. Those rich donors-the unions, corporations and rich individuals-should be wholly removed from the funding of political parties.
To his enormous credit, the Leader of the Opposition not only agrees with that view but has said so publicly on numerous occasions, and has published jointly with me a pamphlet setting out how it can be accomplished. I think he agrees that there is a stench in the nostrils of the electorate about the way parties are funded and he wants to do something about it.
However, the obstacle all along, I regret to say, has been the unions. The publication of the document triggered some very important talks, which took place over two years, chaired by Hayden Phillips, to get to grips with the issue. Tony Blair was involved in those talks, and he too supported the idea, as did the former head of his policy unit, Matt Taylor. Unfortunately, the Labour party did not support it. In particular, the present Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, when he became more closely involved in the talks, obstructed any progress on the key issue, which was the inclusion of unions in the cap:
"The problem was that the system could not be overhauled without some loosening of the ties between Labour and the trade unions which together contributed about £11 million a year"
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |