www.JohnCryerMP.co.uk I returned from the party conference in Brighton on Wednesday evening. Ed Miliband’s promise to freeze power prices has clearly had some impact. He has been attacked by many parts of the media and by the big six energy companies. The continuing refrain from metropolitan commentators is that this is “populist”. Well, if that means it’s popular then it’s perfectly true. A fairly high proportion of my correspondence at the moment from all parts of the constituency concerns rising energy prices. While publicly the government is rubbishing the pledge, privately they are wondering how they can counter it. As you know from previous reports, I think that we should also be committed to holding a referendum on EU membership. We cannot go into the elections next year without it when the other parties are promising a vote. There is now a growing campaign against the Lobbying Bill and I enclose recent interventions I made in the House of Commons which explain where I stand. I recently spoke at a rally at the gates of Whipps Cross Hospital in protest at what is looking like a threat to the hospital’s future. The recent prosecutions and damning report by the CQC are arousing suspicions as to the direction of a trust which is in deep financial trouble. As well as the usual surgeries, street surgeries and home visits. Best wishes, John 9 Sep 2013 : Column 682 Education Questions Topical Questions 9th September John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): How many civil servants at the Department for Education are working on the free schools programme? Michael Gove: More than 100 civil servants are working on the free schools programme—a testimony to its popularity. Last Thursday, I had the opportunity to talk to them and share a drink—in my case, apple juice—to congratulate them on their work. I was overjoyed to discover that this has been one of the most successful and inspiring things they have done in their distinguished careers in public service. 10 Sep 2013 : Column 811 Oral Answers to Questions TREASURY 10TH SEPTEMBER 1. John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): What recent comparative assessment he has made of trends in real wages in the UK and in similar economies. [900219] The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne): The hon. Gentleman asks about trends in real wages. The main deterioration in wages and salaries was from 2007 to 2009 when growth fell from 5.7% to minus 0.6%. This is a vivid reminder of the damage that the great recession did. The Government have taken continued action to help with the cost of living so that last year real household disposable income grew by 1.4%, the fastest growth for three years. Of course, however, these remain difficult times for families, and the only way to deliver improved living standards for the long term is a sustained, balanced economic recovery with low mortgage rates, more jobs and more income tax-free. Our economic plan is delivering that. The Opposition’s plan for more spending and more borrowing would make things worse. John Cryer: Well, that is one of the most vacuous answers I have ever heard, and that is against some very stiff competition. In the past three years real wages in this country have fallen lower than in any G20 country bar one—we are second from bottom. For how long is that going to be sustainable? Mr Osborne: Let us be clear: this country had one of the deepest recessions of any of the countries in the G20 or anywhere else. We had one of the biggest banking crises and our country has had to recover from that, but I point out that in the hon. Gentleman’s own constituency there are now 12,000 more people in work than at the time of the election, and unemployment is down by a third. ____________ I made a series of interventions on the Lobbying Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill on 10th & 11th September – these can be found at the links below http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130910/debtext/13 0910-0002.htm#130910-0002.htm_spnew36 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130911/debtext/13 0911-0001.htm#130911-0001.htm_spnew94 10 Sep 2013 : Column 887 John Cryer: I will start by welcoming back my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—this is the first time I have been able to take part in a debate with him since his return. He is one of the most dogged, tenacious and conscientious MPs I have ever met. I am sure that Comrades Cameron and Clegg will have cracked open the bubbly in Downing street when they realised he had returned. It is worth reminding the Committee that constitutional Bills have previously always been taken without any kind of timetabling or guillotining. The Bill is clearly constitutional, yet it has been very tightly timetabled. Indeed, some might say that it is being rammed through extremely quickly. There are certain specific questions that I would like the Deputy Leader of the House to respond to when he gets to his feet, to do with how the Bill will affect charities and campaigning organisations. Hope not Hate, for example—I assume that most of us are familiar with it— campaigns with politicians of all democratic parties across England, Scotland and Wales. What if 12 months before a general election it issued a leaflet or organised a campaign that happened to mention that a certain candidate was or had been a member of the British National party? Would that be caught by the legislation, or will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us that that will be open to interpretation by the courts and judges? Would that count when it comes to the measures in the Bill that control expenditure of a political nature? What if Hope not Hate had a campaign against the English Defence League? It could be argued that the EDL is not a properly constituted political party, but it has a political wing, the Freedom party, which could take Hope not Hate to court. It could say that such a campaign counted towards election expenditure because it could affect a parliamentary election result achieved by the Freedom party as the political wing of the EDL. What about local hospital campaigns? The recent Save Lewisham Hospital campaign has caught the public imagination and at least three hon. Friends have been involved. What if the campaign took place within 12 months of a general election? It could easily be argued that that could materially influence an election outcome, perhaps in the borough where the hospital is situated or further afield in south or east London. The campaign to save King George hospital ran through a number of Parliaments, so it ran through a number of 12-month periods before general elections. It could be argued that it influenced the electoral outcome in certain parliamentary constituencies. The Defend Council Housing group campaigns in various areas, and against both major parties. When the Labour party was in government, the group engaged in a number of campaigns that were very critical of the Government, and since the general election the same thing has happened with the coalition. Again, it could be argued that that might be caught by the legislation. Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab): Did my hon. Friend not hear the Leader of the House say on Second Reading that he had met senior charity chief officers—the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, I think—and that they were assured and content with the Bill? Does he not take the Leader of the House at his word? John Cryer: No, I do not, funnily enough. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was in her place, but earlier I referred to legal advice given to the NCVO by Helen Mountfield QC that made it clear that the problem is not that the definition of political campaigning has been redefined, but that it will be left wide open to interpretation. That will then lead, as sure as eggs is eggs, to court cases that could rumble on for years and lead to people being imprisoned. Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend has hit on an issue. The explanatory notes make it clear that if a third party enhances a candidate’s standing, regardless of whether that is its intention or not, it will be covered by the Bill. Is that not the problem that my hon. Friend has pointed out by using the example of Defend Council Housing? If a candidate has a particular view on the issue of social housing, the campaign group’s expenditure will be captured by the provisions. 3.45 pm John Cryer: That goes to the heart of the problem in part 2 of the Bill, which has been hastily cobbled together over the past few weeks. I presume that is why the Government have tabled amendments to try to sort out the situation and redeem themselves in the eyes of a lot of charities, non-governmental organisations and others up and down the country. Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab): I apologise, Mr Sheridan, for not having been present for the whole debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that the concerns are not just about localised campaigns, but about UK-wide campaigns and the difficulties facing charities in different parts of the UK in calculating whether they will have crossed the threshold, given that they will have no way of judging the impact of campaigns conducted via websites and e-mail on different parts of the country? John Cryer: I agree with my hon.