Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest, Conservative)

The Minister would not expect me to pass over the fact that this part of the Bill authorises the expenditure of taxpayers' money without questioning her on how and to what extent that money is to be spent. I have several questions.

First, the Secretary of State ''may pay grant'' to a CORE keeper. Will that grant replace other Government money now being spent in that area of administration, or is it new expenditure? I ask as I genuinely do not know the answer.

Secondly, will the money that the Government spend on behalf of the taxpayer for that purpose no longer be spent, or will that pot of money be added to the additional funding being made available under clause 3(3)(1)? In other words, is it new money or replacement money? It is the essential duty of the Opposition to safeguard taxpayers' money from a Government who like too much to spend it. On the other hand, it is certainly not wrong or a misuse of funds to spend taxpayers' money on the further enhancement of our electoral system and the workings of our democracy. Nevertheless, the Committee deserves further explanation.

Thirdly, the grant is to be paid by the Secretary of State to a CORE keeper, so it could be paid to the Electoral Commission. If so, will the commission be given more taxpayers' money to do the work that it already does, or are we authorising the Government to increase the amount being given to the commission because it is to be given further powers and duties; or does it represent a change to the way in which the commission works, and will it receive the same funding?

My concern, as ever, is that we pass legislation in all innocence, believing the Government's assurances that it is necessary whatever the purpose might be. We   unanimously agree that the general purpose of the Bill is good, because it will enhance the way in which elections will be undertaken and therefore enhance and protect the democratic process. That is all very worthy. However, we so often find that we, as representatives of the taxpayer, have somehow, wittingly or unwittingly, authorised the expenditure of taxpayers' money where it is not absolutely necessary. Given that the Treasury holds one pot of money for all purposes, we should always remember that if taxpayers' money is spent on such purposes, it cannot be spent on hospitals, schools, social services departments and so on.

When we argue that cuts have been made in one area or another, we have used taxpayers' money for another purpose. I will not stray into a general consideration of such matters, but restrict myself to considering whether this is necessary expenditure.

See this speech in context