| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham) (Con): Tonights episode has been a pretty unseemly end to what I believe the Justice Secretary will admit has not been a particularly glorious legislative process that the Bill has gone through in this House. The Bill started life in autumn last year as a thoroughly partisan measure designed to achievelet us face itpolitical advantage. The policy goals were exceptionally poorly thought through, leaving the unfortunate parliamentary draftsman an impossible task. The main provisions attracted significant criticism from all sides; the Electoral Commission pointed out that a number went well beyond what it had sought and that other provisions provided no benefit and had a significant downside. All the political parties, including his own, attacked several of the Bills original provisions.
The storm of obloquy that the Bill attracted prompted the Secretary of State to return, belatedly, to the path of discussion and common sense, even if consensus was not achieved in all matters. The requirement to verify the source of donations was sensibly dropped, the powers for the Electoral Commission were sensibly trimmed back and the thoroughly partisan proposal to reintroduce triggering was dropped; the Bill is completely different from what was introduced in the autumn of last year. This has been achieved much less by dint of having full and open debate in the Commonsin this House and in Committeebecause of the rigidity of the programme motion that was introduced, which allowed very little scope for the sort of matters that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) raised this evening and has led to what most of the House would recognise to have been a fairly unseemly process.
The Bill is a massive missed opportunity to deal with the big donor culture by having a genuine across-the-board cap on donations.
Mr. Maude: I do not have time to give way. The Liberal Democrats have occupied enough air time tonight and I am certainly not going to give them any more.
There was a real opportunity to put together a cap that would have applied to all donations, including those to political parties from trade union affiliation fees. At some stage these issues will need to be addressed thoroughly. Every effort should be made at all times to seek consensus on these matters.
I am glad that at the eleventh hour the Government have, at last, agreed to move ahead with individual voter registration, albeit in what still seems to be a lamentably leisurely time scale. They committed to the principle of individual voter registration many years ago, but a bit like St. Augustine, they seem to be saying, Make me chaste, but not yet. Some Labour Back Benchers seemed to be suggesting that this process, which is scheduled not to be completed until 2015, should be allowed to run yet further, but that is quite wrong. We approve of
the decision to go ahead, and we believe that what is sought can be accomplished earlier than that. We believe that it could be accomplished by 2013, and there is support even from the Electoral Commission for that. It would be our intention that that should be achieved.
Much progress has been made, not all of it willingly, especially in the early stages by the Government, and because the Bill is now such a very different
Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 9 February ).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
That, for the purposes of the Guide to the Rules for the Conduct of Members, which was agreed to by this House on 9 February (Annex to House of Commons Paper No. 208), the threshold relating to any requirement for hon. Members
(a) to report donations or loans which have been refused or returned because they are impermissible or from unidentified sources; and
(b) to keep a record of interests which fall below the threshold for registration
shall be the statutory threshold for the time being applying to the reporting to the Electoral Commission, or recording of such donations and loans, by hon. Members. (Mr. Watts.)
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 to 6 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6) ) ,
That the draft Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 26 January, be approved.
That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Franchise of Relevant Citizens of the Union) (Amendment) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.
That the draft Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Non-profitmaking Companies) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 27 January, be approved.
That the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 21 January, be approved. (Mr. Watts.)
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 3 March, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on:
(a) the Motions in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to membership of Regional Select Committees not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and
(b) the Motions in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to Green Book (Committee on Members Allowances), Liaison Committee (Membership) and Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion;
such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply. (Mr. Watts.)
That Mr John Randall be discharged from the Administration Committee and Michael Fabricant be added. (Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South) (LD): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to submit this petition, although I do so with somewhat disappointed feelings, on behalf of the council tenants in the Portsmouth city council area. They are disappointed that the Government continue to take many millions of pounds from them; the Government have taken £8.7 million, including £4.6 million this financial year, from the rents of the city council tenants for general Government expenditure. The tenants hope that the House will urge the Government to reverse that trend and take account of not only the campaign by Portsmouth city council tenants, but that of tenants throughout the country of England; the other parts of the UK are covered by separate legislation on this point.
The petition is submitted in the names of Mr. Stothard, Ms Jacqui Reardon, Ms Shai Hancock-Richardson and Olivia Cowburn. I am proud to present this petition.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Humble Petition of Portsmouth City council Tenants, and others,
Sheweth that the Government has taken £8.7 million including £4.6 million this financial year from the rents of Portsmouth City council tenants for general Government expenditure; and declares that this will continue for the next 30 years at an estimated cost of £500 million,
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Government to revise this trend so that the rent from Portsmouth City council tenants is spent directly for their benefit,
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c. ]
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab): It gives me great pleasure to present a public petition on behalf of retired members of Unisons south-east region branch, of pensioners and of others. As a former employee of Unison and co-chair of the Unison group of MPs, I clearly have an interest. However, I absolutely believe in what the petition is saying and have said so in this Chamber before now.
The Petition of the Retired Members Committee of the South East Region branch of Unison, pensioners, and others,
Declares that the 2008 basic state pension was set at £90.70 per week, while the official poverty level was set at £134 per week; further declares that if the state pension link to average earnings had not been broken by Margaret Thatchers Government, the state pension would stand at £139 per week; notes that pensioners receive only a 25 pence per week increase in their pension when they reach the age of eighty; further notes that the National Insurance Fund has a surplus of £38.5bn; and believes that these statistics speak for themselves.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to raise the state pension immediately to £139 and to restore the link to average earnings for future increases.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. (Mr. Watts.)
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |