Bilderberg Conference

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

Perhaps my hon. Friend was not here when I started answering this question and said that this is the first time I have ever risen in the House of Commons to answer questions on behalf of a private organisation for which the British Government have absolutely no responsibility.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I know I cannot be described as a rising star, so should I not presume that my invitation was lost in the post? Can the Minister say whether or not, either formally or informally, he took the opportunity while at the conference to discuss his campaign to keep the UK within the European Union, and which members of the EU were there?

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I do not think I am being too indiscreet when I say that the subject of the future of the European Union and Britain’s participation in it did come up from time to time over the weekend. People from many countries have quite a strong interest in that subject, so it was discussed, but under Chatham House rules, and I can assure him that no conclusions of any kind were reached.

EU Council and Woolwich

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 3rd June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Any peace process worth its name has to start with a peace conference, getting the parties around the table and trying to work out the elements of the Syrian opposition and the Syrian Government that could form a transitional Government, but then we have to plan what the Syrian Government and a Syrian political settlement will look like afterwards. One of the lessons from history is that we do not want to see the institutions of the state destroyed. We want to see them properly serving the people.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Did the Prime Minister mention at the EU Council the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton)? Did he make it clear that if the British people voted in any in/out referendum to leave the EU, that result would be accepted and we would not keep having a rerun of the referendum, as the EU normally does until it gets the result that it wants? If he did not make that clear, would he like to take this opportunity to do so?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that there was some interest among my fellow Heads of Government in the private Member’s Bill. I absolutely agree that we must have a referendum, not a neverendum. It is very important that, as with the referendum about Scotland’s future in the United Kingdom, we give the people the chance to decide and then obey their decision.

Tributes to Baroness Thatcher

Philip Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Margaret Thatcher was my political inspiration. I only wish that I had been here in Parliament when she was Prime Minister, as it would have been a rare treat indeed to be on these Benches and able to support a Government with whom I agreed from time to time.

My earliest political memory was of the Falklands war of 1982. I was 10 years old and remember coming home from school to see what was going on over in the Falklands. It was during that crisis that I built up my admiration for Margaret Thatcher. I was born in Doncaster and was brought up in Doncaster North, the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition. As he made clear, it was a strong mining community. My father was involved with the local Conservative party—there are not many Conservatives in Doncaster—and as soon as I was old enough to deliver leaflets and knock on doors, my father had me out delivering leaflets and knocking on doors. I loved elections—we never used to win any, but I still loved them.

People have often said to me that it must have been incredibly difficult going around mining communities in the mid to late-1980s supporting Margaret Thatcher and a Conservative Government. It was not difficult at all. I believed in Margaret Thatcher to my core, and when we believed in somebody in the way I believed in Margaret Thatcher it was not difficult to go knocking on doors to support the great things she did for this country. It was not Margaret Thatcher who ruined those mining communities; it was Arthur Scargill who ruined them—and let no one forget that.

Margaret Thatcher was a conviction politician. She believed that politics was all about trying to persuade people of what she believed in rather than just telling people what she thought they wanted to hear. That is the kind of politics that I believe in. She did not need focus groups or opinion polls to tell her what to believe. She was instinctively in tune with the British public.

I remember from when I was working at Asda that the best retailers were the ones who instinctively knew what the customers wanted without having to go to a focus group to ask. The worst chief executives of retailers were the ones who always had to be told what the focus groups were telling them and what the opinion polls were telling them. For me, it is exactly the same with political leaders. The best political leaders such as Margaret Thatcher instinctively know what the public want and where they are—they do not need opinion polls—and the worst political leaders are those who have to rely on those polls because they know no better themselves.

Too often, politicians in this country try to be popular. My advice would be, “If you want to be popular, don’t be a politician” because of the inevitable consequence that they will become unpopular. Popularity in politics will always be a temporary thing. One thing that can last for ever in politics, however, is respect. Even if not popular, a politician can still be respected, and Margaret Thatcher was one of those politicians. She was a Marmite politician: people either loved her or hated her, but she was universally respected, even among her political foes, because she knew what she believed in, she stood up for it and she delivered it to people. Whether people agreed with her or not, they trusted in her as a politician because she was doing what she thought was genuinely the right thing to do. We need more politicians like that.

Margaret Thatcher won three general elections on the trot, and the best way to sum up her achievement is to recognise that more people voted Conservative in her third general election than they had done the first time she won in 1979. That is a remarkable achievement showing how she built support over those eight years. Tony Blair, on the other hand, won three general elections but lost 4 million voters between the last and the first election. That goes to show the difference in calibre between those two politicians who might otherwise be closely compared.

Margaret Thatcher was voted out by her own party. This occasion gives me the opportunity to put on record my utter contempt for those in our party—people who were not fit to lick her boots—who ousted her in 1990. That did an awful lot of damage—but not just to the country, as it did long-term damage to the Conservative party as well.

Anyone wanting to sum up Mrs Thatcher should look at her final performance from the Dispatch Box as Prime Minister. It was one of the finest performances that has ever been seen in Parliament. I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) was in his place to speak today. He will remember, probably quite painfully, how she wiped the floor with him when he intervened—[Interruption.] I think it was Michael Carttiss who said from the Conservative Benches that she could wipe the floor with the lot of them, and that was absolutely true—she could. During that debate, I wonder how many Conservative Members wondered, “Oh, Lord, what have we done?” They got rid of the greatest Prime Minister this country has ever seen. There will never be another like her. It is a privilege to speak in this debate and to hear some of the great stories that help us to find the true Margaret Thatcher—one I will for ever admire.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 March.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues, and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Philip Davies]

Does the Prime Minister agree that today we need a blue collar Conservative Budget which cuts taxes for people who work hard, do the right thing and want to get on; which stops spending billions of pounds that we do not have on overseas aid; and in which we source the cheapest energy for people, helping them with their costs of living, rather than sourcing the greenest energy?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to remind people that even before this Budget, in two weeks’ time there will be a tax cut for 24 million people in our country as we raise the amount of money someone can earn before they pay tax. We will have taken more than 2 million people out of tax altogether; we have frozen council tax; we have cancelled fuel duty increase after fuel duty increase; and we are legislating to put customers on the lowest electricity tariff. I can also tell my hon. Friend that we are not going to carry on with the proposal made by the previous Energy Secretary, which was to put £179 on everybody’s bill. We have decided to scrap that.

European Council

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly do that. Paragraph 7 of the conclusions talks about support for a comprehensive trade agreement with the US, looks forward to the launch of negotiations with Japan, and expects the negotiations with Canada to be concluded very shortly. Britain will continue to lead on this issue.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I also congratulate the Prime Minister. He has shown clearly the difference between what happens when a Conservative Prime Minister negotiates for this country and when a Labour Prime Minister negotiates for this country. He has done far better, I might add, than any of the unlikely leadership bidders we have seen on the Conservative Benches in recent weeks, too. Will he set out to the House clearly what he expects the UK’s gross contribution and net contribution to be in each of the next seven years?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his steadfast support. The difficulty in answering his question directly is that until we have the exact breakdowns of spending on agriculture, structural funds and cohesion in each year, it is difficult to work out exactly how much the rebate will deliver. The rebate does not operate on the cohesion spending in eastern Europe, but it does operate on agriculture spending. It is only when we know those parameters that we can work out the position. I have been straightforward and said that the British contribution is likely to go up because of the changes to the rebate agreed by the previous Government. However, they will go up by less than they would have done, because we have constrained the budget and because we have kept the rest of the rebate intact.

Commercial Lobbyists (Registration and Code of Conduct) Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Friday 1st February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

The Bill is simple enough, but I commend to the hon. Gentleman both the Public Administration Committee report and the Library note.

On the question of what a lobbyist is, I think we sometimes get things back to front. We have tended to try to define what a lobbyist is, rather than lobbying. For the purposes of the Bill, the groups of people and organisations we are trying to capture are those that are paid or receive financial recompense for carrying out this activity.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Has the hon. Gentleman drawn any distinction between a small business that would naturally go to its local MP with any issue and a company, perhaps a multinational, with no links at all to that constituency?

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. If he will bear with me for a couple of moments, I will explain exactly how the Bill makes the distinction, and again I would commend to him the PASC report, which talks about that very issue.

A high-profile Bill on equal marriage is coming before the House next Tuesday. Like many Members on both sides of the House, I have received a number of letters from constituents and organisations about it. I will take one example. If my local parish priest were to write to me, either as a constituent or on behalf of his congregation, expressing a view either way, he would not be captured by this definition, because he would not be getting paid to undertake that activity. It would be in addition to his remunerated post. If, however, the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church or any other Church were to employ a public affairs officer to draft a letter or organise meetings, he or she would clearly be getting paid to organise, either directly or as an adviser, that lobbying activity.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Thomas Docherty]

I have a delightful choice. I will give way to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) first.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that example. He will see that we talk about peers in later clauses. With his indulgence, I would like to return later to the issue of peers undertaking lobbying activities later. On the principle, however, if we were to leave the European Union, the pension of the Deputy Prime Minister, for example, as a former euro civil servant, would not be affected. In the same way, that consideration would probably not apply in the case that the hon. Gentleman raises.

[Philip Davies]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the fact that EU pensions are forfeitable, unlike most other pensions. However, let me return to the point I raised initially. Where a managing director of a small business, perhaps in my constituency, took on a number of roles because of the nature of that business and one of them was explaining to the local Member of Parliament exactly what was necessary for the livelihood of his business, would that constitute lobbying for financial gain—it would clearly be in the financial interests of the company—and would it thereby be captured by the Bill?

[Thomas Docherty]

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. Perhaps I could present two separate examples and then he can tell me whether I have answered his question fully. If a local business person is the chairman or chairwoman of a local chamber of commerce that meets regularly on behalf of its members to lobby on issues of concern, they would not be covered by the Bill, nor should they be. However, if a Member of this House voluntarily or, as occasionally happens, involuntarily loses their seat and sets themselves up as a sole trader or limited company for the express purpose of being a lobbyist—like, I am sure, many Members, I have had the opportunity to meet former Members who are engaged in that profession—they would be covered by the Bill. The Association of Professional Political Consultants is the largest trade body for third-party lobbyists. A large number of its members are small businesses that are sole traders or perhaps employ only two or three people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman has made a significant point. I served as a lobbyist, both in-house and as a third-party consultant, for a number of years. He is right to suggest that someone could undertake what most people would define as lobbying activity on a part-time basis. For three years, I worked in the nuclear industry, for British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. My official title was press and public affairs officer, and, in effect ran BNFL’s operation in Scotland. I was responsible for working with the local community on a range of stakeholder issues, I drafted the press releases for the Chapelcross and Hunterston sites, and I looked after Sellafield’s inquiries in Scotland, which involved going to the Scottish Parliament. I also recall spending two or three wonderful days in the Western Isles making a presentation to the council on technetium discharges into the Irish sea.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that someone can undertake lobbying activities without that being their sole purpose. Any relatively reasonable individual—I can think of no better description for the hon. Gentleman—who looked at a job description and saw lobbying activities among the core functions, or the outcome of lobbying as a measure related to pay, would draw a reasonable assumption from that.

I must remind the House that the definition I have used is the one used by the UK Public Affairs Council in its submission to the PASC inquiry on this subject. I have met representatives of a wide range of organisations, including the Association of Professional Political Consultants and Unlock Democracy, and they have been satisfied that the definition is suitably robust. The Bill tries to strike the right balance by using a definition that goes as widely as is reasonable without inadvertently drawing in the kind of individuals that Conservative Members have mentioned, such as members of the local chamber of commerce or people who come along to make representations to their Member of Parliament or local authority.

I will make some progress now, as I am conscious that other Members wish to speak in the debate. A registration process exists at the moment. The largest single organisation is the Association of Professional Political Consultants, which has been in existence for about 18 years. It is made up of most of the well-known lobbying and public affairs companies and many small companies, as well as political consultants—that is, third-party lobbyists. The association has a membership of about 50 companies and individuals who work as sole traders. They all sign up to the association’s register, and they have to abide by its code of conduct. They also have to publish on a quarterly basis a list of their clients, including those for whom they are doing paid work and those for whom they are working pro bono. It is interesting to note that a number of companies undertake pro bono work. They do so for various reasons, and I dare say that some of them do it to get some good PR for themselves.

In 2009, when the then Cabinet Office Ministers were considering their response to the previous PASC report on this issue, a number of the leading players in public relations got together. They included not only APPC members but representatives of the law firms that have public relations arms and of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations. They decided that they had a choice, and that a statutory body would be set up if they took no further steps and failed to recognise the significant problems that the PASC report had identified, which Ministers were considering. That was one of the clear outcomes of the PASC report. They therefore set up the body known as UKPAC—the United Kingdom Public Affairs Council.

I was the secretary of the Scottish branch of the APPC for a while, and I attended one of the meetings in the summer of 2009 at which the APPC board discussed UKPAC. I remember counselling the board that a voluntary system would not work, and in the two and a half years since it was set up, it has not worked. I will explain more about that later. It is interesting to note that there was agreement on this issue among those in the industry. It is important to remember that it is an important, multi-billion pound industry.

Lobbying is a healthy part of our democracy. We have already heard some examples of the roles that it can play, and no one has criticised them. We have heard about local businesses or religious organisations being involved, as well as companies being employed by individuals. In a parliamentary democracy such as ours, it is every citizen’s right to lobby their Member of Parliament, and I believe that it is their right either to lobby their MP themselves or, if they feel that they do not have the time or the skills to do that, to employ someone else either individually or collectively to do it for them. That is not to say that those who are so employed and who make a financial gain from lobbying should be allowed to do so unchecked, without any rules whatever. Registration is an important step in the right direction.

A journalist from a relatively august newspaper—not quite The Times; it was an almost august newspaper— phoned me yesterday to ask me how many people worked in lobbying and public affairs. I have taken a close interest in this issue, both before I entered the House and since, but I did not know how many people were working in that field. I think it was the Library briefing note that estimated that only 1% of those working in public affairs were third-party lobbyists—that is, consultants—and that 99% worked in-house. It is therefore vital that registration should cover not only third-party lobbyists but all those who undertake commercial, paid lobbying. Both PASC reports have acknowledged that, as have the industry players and Unlock Democracy—not, perhaps, a natural ally of the lobbying industry. Indeed, everyone—bar one important group of people—believes that any register or code of conduct should cover all those who undertake commercial lobbying.

To use a made-up example, it would be ridiculous if “Landmines R Us” were not required to register its multi-million pound public affairs operation because that operation was in-house, while those whom it employed as third-party consultants were required to be registered even though they accounted for only a tiny proportion of the time and money the company spent in that area.

A Member asked me a question this morning in the Tea Room. I am always loth to give away Tea Room secrets—[Interruption.] To be fair, as I recall it, he was heading out of the door, so I take that into account. He asked me why the Bill did not deal only with third-party lobbyists, and the answer is that they are such a small percentage. It would be strange if it dealt only with the third-party lobbyists and not those who work in-house. We need a level playing field. That was the conclusion of PASC and Unlock Democracy, and it was the conclusion reached by the industry itself. I am not sure that the Cabinet Office is there yet, but I know the Minister is considering the matter carefully. Perhaps she will be in a position to comment either today or in the near future.

[Philip Davies]

I am just wondering how great a revelation it will be for the general public to find out that the public affairs manager for Asda is registered as doing lobbying on behalf of Asda.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the point of registration. The point is not simply to put people’s names on to a register, which is why the code of conduct is so important. The PASC report said that having a register that is not backed up by a code of conduct is, in itself, pointless. The hon. Gentleman is therefore entirely correct to suggest that a having a register for its own sake does not do anything. If no offences can be charged against the people on the register and there are no rules of behaviour, the register will be pointless. I do not know whether what I am going to say will be worse for his career or for mine—

[Philip Davies]

You can’t do any more harm to my career!

[Thomas Docherty]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman has a bright future and is good stalking-horse material. Anyway, I entirely agree with him that a register by itself would be a waste of everyone’s time and money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I would like to answer it before responding to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).

There are three different organisations at UK level that keep various registers, and there is an organisation in Scotland called ASPA—the Association for Scottish Public Affairs. Let me give a further example to explain the position. My wife, who is currently on maternity leave, works for Age Scotland. Age Scotland has a public affairs or public relations operation and is a member of ASPA. It declares to ASPA the people who in the public affairs or public relations team; indeed, its head of public relations is this year’s convener; for those who have not had the benefit of a Scottish education, a convener is a Scottish version of a chairman or chairwoman. Because my wife has no direct link to the comms operation, she is not registered. The fact that a relatively small charity such as Age Scotland is able to comply with those requirements shows that this is not an unreasonable burden.

As Conservative Members may know, I am something of a free marketeer and I do not always agree that regulation is the best way forward. What this Bill seeks to do is place a reasonable burden on those organisations for which there is a financial reward from the activity of lobbying. As I say, this goes no further than the Association of Professional Political Consultants already requires its members to do—members that are as large as Weber Shandwick and Bell Pottinger, and as small as some sole traders.

[Philip Davies]

I am getting more and more confused, which you might say is not difficult, Mr Speaker. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) could be on to something with his examples of the finance director and board members. The hon. Gentleman’s own definition of lobbying does not seem to match what he thinks should be covered. The Bill defines lobbying as

“any activity carried out in the course of a business or employment which are undertaken for financial gain and are designed to influence the Government of the United Kingdom.”

That seems absolutely to meet the criteria set out by my hon. Friend when he talked about the role of the finance director, for example.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am always happy to engage in a lively debate, and this has been quite an informative one. As I say, there is a danger of trying to second-guess two Select Committees, UKPAC, the APPC and Unlock Democracy, all of which have concurred on what is an acceptable definition of lobbying. Nevertheless, there was a genuine question—I apologise for not yet addressing it—about who within an organisation would be expected to be registered. That brings me back to the proposals of the last Minister for the Cabinet Office. We do not know yet what revised proposals may emerge.

The question posed by the APPC for the purpose of its register is “Do you have a public-facing role in which you articulate a policy on behalf of the client?” That applies to companies large and small. When I was an account director and wanted to lobby a Member of Parliament, it would not always be me who telephoned the Member’s office or drafted a letter to the Member, although it would be me who signed the letter. It might be an account manager or an account executive who did the chasing up or issued the request for a meeting, as is the case in many organisations, and because that person would be dealing directly with the Member’s office, according to the APPC’s own definition he or she ought to be registered. The person who came in to clean the office in the morning, or the security officer, would not be performing a public-facing role or trying to influence public policy. I see one or two puzzled faces—

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

That is the current requirement. The Minister may be able to say more when she responds to the debate, but I think that it is what the Government are proposing as well.

[Philip Davies]

Just because it is the Government’s proposal does not make it a good one.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

I thank my hon. Friend. I think that that is the first intervention that I have taken from him and I look forward to many more.

There is a great deal of complexity in this matter. The Royal Society of Chemistry has a great way of lobbying Members of Parliament. It does identify an individual who is on its membership for each Member of Parliament. My constituent came and had tea with me in the Pugin Room and said, “I do not want to lobby you on anything in particular, but hopefully you will be here for a few years—maybe four, maybe longer—so this is the beginning of an ongoing relationship.” That is a kind of hybrid example.

We need to consider these matters in a lot more detail. We have talked about considering the Bill in Committee, but there seems to be an increasing list of things that we must consider in Committee. I wonder whether the Bill has more flaws than can be resolved in Committee.

[Philip Davies]

As my hon. Friend knows, I agree with him on most issues, but I am in danger of parting company with him on this. I do not see the distinction that he sees between a constituent who works for an organisation and has been asked by it to lobby their local MP, and the public affairs manager for the same organisation who lobbies as many MPs as agree to see them. I do not see the great distinction that we should be so troubled about.

[James Duddridge]

The fact that this matter has driven my hon. Friend to disagree with me is evidence enough that it is complex. It is a criticism of the Bill as a whole if there is no shared understanding of how we should proceed on these matters.

The lobbying industry responded to the report of the Public Administration Committee in March 2010. The three main lobbying organisations were involved in that. I shall not repeat their names because the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife has given some background on them. There was an agreement to maintain a register of those engaged in lobbying and of the organisations and clients on whose behalf they lobby.

It is right that there is clarity on who the lobbyists are working for, particularly given the issue of what might happen in the last 15 minutes of the meeting. Lobbyists will sometimes start the meeting on a nice warm and cosy issue, and then hit the Member of Parliament with the landmines issue or, dare I say it, the nuclear issue—a harder subject that the Member of Parliament might be less likely to accept a meeting on when pressed for time.

[James Duddridge]

My hon. Friend is right. However, he has as much experience of constituency meetings as I have, and will know that quite often, lobbyists come to meetings with constituents. If it is a meeting with somebody who is purely commercial, the Member of Parliament can say, “Sling your hook! We agreed to have a meeting for an hour on this subject and you are going off the subject and abusing the office and the time that I gave you.” However, I have occasionally found myself, perhaps wrongly, allowing an issue to be raised because a constituent is there and is happy for it to be discussed.

[Philip Davies]

To probe my hon. Friend further, will he tell the House what is the problem with listening to a point of view on a subject other than the agreed subject? It is as if lobbying is a bad thing. Surely lobbying is a good thing if it helps us to understand a point of view a bit better. What is the harm in listening? We do not have to agree or sympathise with a given point of view.

[James Duddridge]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. However, the promoter of the Bill was referring to systematic abuse. He was not talking about somebody saying, “While I’m here, can we discuss X or Y, rather than arrange a second meeting?” He was talking about the sole purpose of the original meeting being to gain entry into the MP’s office to raise an issue that they had not agreed to discuss.

I prepare quite heavily for meetings with constituents or lobbying organisations, because I do not want to be bamboozled by special interests, but want to be sure that I have an independent view on the subject. If the meeting is hijacked, there is no time for such preparation or to give a good view. When I have meetings, I want to be able to summarise the matter and take a view, rather than saying, “Let me go away and think about it.”

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

I am a little confused. I stand to be corrected, but I think that such a company would need to register while we remained part of the European Union. Interestingly, the register there is free, so the European Union is looking at getting the maximum amount of information and funding that from general taxation—our taxation.

[Philip Davies]

I should point out—I suppose this is an indication of how confusing the issue is—that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) makes a valid point, because the definition of lobbying in clause 4 refers to

“activity carried out in the course of a business or employment which are undertaken for financial gain and are designed to influence the Government of the United Kingdom, Parliament, any local authority in England or any member or employee of any of those bodies in formulating its official policy.”

Surely it is clear from that definition that what my hon. Friend said about the register not applying to people working with the European Parliament is correct.

[James Duddridge]

I now understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) was making. My hon. Friends are absolutely right: under this Bill, there is nothing to compel an organisation from the United Kingdom—or, indeed, anywhere else—that lobbies the European Parliament. I wonder whether, because of the nature of the European Parliament’s rules, there are any EU regulations about that. Logically, I expect that we would be forced by some directive to push it through by the back door; otherwise, if each country did not have to abide by it, such a register would be pretty meaningless.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

I do not feel it is appropriate to mention the names that have been presented to me of organisations set up in London to lobby in the United States—I can give that much information. If the hon. Gentleman is particularly interested, I will take advice and will happily write to him later if doing so does not breach the confidence of the person who shared that information with me.

We wholeheartedly agree that lobbyists play an important role in our democracy. Individuals, charities and business must have open access to Government, and that access should not be impeded by legislation. However, that access should also be transparent, and any register should not impede that.

Lobbying is not, and should not be considered to be, a murky or disreputable business that takes place in the shadows. It is in the interests of the lobbying industry to put that reputation behind it, and a Bill such as this one would help it to do so.

I think all Members on both sides of the House agree on the principles and that a register is necessary.

[Philip Davies]

No, we don’t.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I agree with my hon. Friend. On a similar theme, he might like to comment on the civil service. We have all seen in “Yes Minister” how the civil service lobbies the Government in a surreptitious manner to try to protect its interests. Perhaps, on that basis, it might need to be placed on the register.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is probably common ground among Members on both sides of the House and from all parties that when one arrives in this place one soon begins to realise that the real power lies with the civil service. In fact, it is often the civil servants the lobbyists want to see, because they know that influencing the thinking of the civil service can be far more effective than, for example, influencing what a Back-Bench Member of this House may think.

I cannot see what would be the benefit to society of having a register of lobbyists. I can see lots of downsides, but I cannot see its purpose. Would it really be the case that every time somebody rang up to make an appointment with a Member, they, or their staff, would bother to consult it? It just would not happen, and even if it did, I cannot see what the purpose would be. Members of the lobbying profession are often, by definition, in the business of promoting themselves. Their websites often contain huge lists of their clients; it is not as though they are trying to hide on whose behalf they are acting. When somebody rings up, one knows straight away, or can quickly find out by asking one or two questions, on whose behalf they are calling. I am not confident that there would be any real use in having such a register.

That brings me on to the question of how the register would be arranged and organised and, more importantly, who would keep it. The Bill suggests that a new organisation, the lobbying registration council—not a new quango but a new industry-funded body—would be responsible for maintaining and supervising the register and keeping it up to date. However, we have no idea of what particulars would be entered on it. It is a blank canvas. Obviously, there would be the name and address of the company or individual and details of their clients, but how long would it be before someone said, “Well, frankly, that’s not much use”? It would be the thin end of the wedge. I suspect that those who thought that it was a good idea to have a register would soon be saying, “What we really want is to know who these lobbyists have met, and we want that recorded on the register. We want to know for how long they met a given individual, where they met, what was the purpose of the meeting, and what was its outcome.” Before long, what started off as a simple register of names, addresses and lists of clients would develop into an enormous database of facts and figures and lists of meetings. It would become a bureaucratic nightmare for those involved in the lobbying industry.

How will my constituents benefit from all that regulation and registration? When I look at things, I always ask, “How will my constituents benefit from this?” I can see that those who may want to engage in the lobbying industry will suffer as a result of the Bill, but I fail to see how my constituents would benefit in any meaningful way from a register of lobbyists.

We do not know what all this will cost. Again, it has been glossed over. We have heard about and debated lots of other things, but we have no idea about that crucial question. One of the first things that a lobbyist would ask is, “How much will this cost?” We have no idea.

[Mr Nuttall]

That is a useful contribution, but the cost of £200 to £300 is for an entirely different register from that which the Bill proposes, which is statutorily based. The lobbying registration council will be funded by those who will pay to be on the register, so in order to determine the cost of registration we have to look at the LRC itself, which, as I have said, is a blank canvas.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend might want also to consider the potential cost to other parts of the state, such as the police force. According to clause 3, a breach of the proposed code of conduct will be a criminal offence. I presume that the police would have to investigate complaints of any breaches and that the Crown Prosecution Service would have to consider whether to press charges, so the cost to the public purse would be much bigger than the figure of zero that we were led to believe earlier.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. If I have the chance later, I will address the fact that, before long, it will be argued that he who pays the piper calls the tune. This is meant to be a self-funded organisation, so it follows that, as soon as the first scandal arises—and, as sure as eggs is eggs, it will—everybody will say, “Ah! That’s happened because the organisation that’s meant to be supervising the register is paid for by the industry itself. It’s not an effective regulator after all. It’s not keeping an effective register. It’s not doing its job.” Before long, there will be calls for the organisation to be removed from “self-regulation” and for it to be paid for by the public purse. As my hon. Friend has said, however, even before we get to that stage there will be increased costs for the public purse, even if complaints are unproven and the police say there is no cause for prosecution. Given that we do not know what will be in the code, we do not know how likely that is to happen—it might be very likely.

[Philip Davies]

Given that two of the postcodes in my constituency are in the top 20 burglary hotspots in the country, I would prefer the police to concentrate on sorting out that issue than to dance around the issues in clause 3 of this Bill.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am sure that my constituents would agree with that. They would much rather that the police were on the streets fighting the crime that they are concerned about than wondering whether a lobbyist in London, Manchester, Liverpool, Nottingham or Glasgow has breached a provision of some code, the details of which we know not. I am extremely concerned about that.

The cost of the lobbying registration council will be dependent on its size and nature. There will be no obligation on it to scrimp or save, because no matter what the organisation costs, it will be passed on to those who by law—they have no choice in the matter—have to register. That is a licence to print money. The council can employ as many people as it likes. It can have as many expense accounts as it likes. It can have offices as lavish as it likes. It could have a whole office block in the centre of London and it would not matter. It could give all of its employees company cars and it would not matter.

[Philip Davies]

We might end up with the ridiculous situation in which the lobbying registration council has to register on its own register because it is lobbying to take further powers and increase the size of its bureaucracy.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It probably will have to register on its own register, because I am sure that before long it will want greater powers and to extend its reach into new areas. We have already come across a possible new area this morning. As has been pointed out, one of the gaps in the Bill is that it does not provide for the registration of those who want to lobby the European Parliament. The council may well lobby the Government to amend the legislation to cover that area. My hon. Friend is right that, on that basis, it would have to be on its own register.

We do not know how many members will be on the council. Will it be two or three, or thirty or forty? How representative will it be? Will it have to have members from every region of the country? Will it have to have members from different lobbying organisations?

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, because I know that he is trying to move towards a conclusion. I remind him that all those matters will rightly be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I am sure that he has even more confidence in his Ministers than I do.

[Philip Davies]

I wouldn’t be so sure.

[Mr Nuttall]

I have every confidence in our Ministers. I hope that, as a result of this debate, the Government will continue to worry about the path that they have sent themselves down with the consultation. It is clear from the consultation that it is easy to say, “Let’s have a register of lobbyists,” but that when one looks at the detail, the problems arise. The devil is in the detail.

As I have said, I fail to see how a register of lobbyists would help anybody. That is what we should be thinking about. How will a register help? How will it solve any of the so-called problems? I fail to see that there are problems. I am not bothered about them, but perhaps other people are. In a healthy democracy, everybody lobbies their MP. I am sure that every MP has the same experience at the weekend. I will be going down the street and somebody will tap me on the shoulder and say, “I know it’s the weekend, but I would like to have a quick word with you about blah-de-blah-de-blah.” They want to explain their point of view and to influence me. That is the nature of representative democracy in this country; it happens every day of the week. Some people do it because they are interested, and others do it for reward. I fail to see, however, how having a register will help to solve those problems in any way, shape or form.

Not only do we not know how many members will be on this lobbying registration council, it is not clear who will appoint them. How will they be appointed? Will they be appointed by the Government? Indeed, will they be appointed at all? Will they be elected? Will all members of the lobbying organisation, who have to pay for it, get to elect its members? Who will be eligible to serve on that august body? Will they need a qualification to be a member of the lobbying registration council?

This is the thin end of the wedge and I have seen no evidence this morning to convince me that a register is a good or sensible idea that will benefit my constituents in any way. A likely consequence of the Bill is that, just as we saw last week with the Offshore Gambling Bill, something that ostensibly starts out as a good idea will rapidly turn into the opposite of that. Given that the Act would apply only to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, we may find that lobbying organisations faced with enormous regulation and fees will move offshore. They will say, “I’m not staying here and paying vast fees of thousands and thousands of pounds each year; I will move.” They will move offshore, either to Gibraltar or indeed outside the European Union altogether.

The promoter of the Bill mentioned that the fees might be £200 or £300, but it is not clear whether that will be standardised. Will the fee be the same for an individual as for a huge conglomerate or large multinational company with a huge client base? I suspect that the one-man band will pay one fee, and that the huge multinational will pay another—many thousands of pounds. For that reason, those multinationals might be inclined to think, “If we are faced with these fees and all that bureaucracy, we will move offshore.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on bringing before the House this morning not only this Bill, but a list of Bills? He is an expert in parliamentary procedure, and I commend him for that and for his initiative in making sure he got his Bill to the top of this morning’s list.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), I am less impressed with the merits of the Bill. My hon. Friend did us a favour this morning when he introduced into the debate the following issue: what problem are we trying to solve? It is no good examining a Bill’s merits in isolation; that can be done only when we look at what we are trying to deal with. Like him, I have not been persuaded today as to what problem we are so desperately trying to deal with. One is left with the impression that what lies behind all this—to the credit of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, he did not put himself in this camp—is some kind of view that lobbying, particularly commercial lobbying, is a bad, grubby thing that should be discouraged. We appear to be trying to find a way to clamp down on commercial lobbying. The consequence—where we will end up with all of this agenda—is that we will make Members of Parliament lobby shy. We seem to be trying to get to the stage where Members of Parliament avoid, at all costs, coming into contact with lobbyists— particularly “commercial lobbyists”, as they are described—and that would be a very dangerous thing.

I will put my cards on the table: I think that lobbying, including commercial lobbying, is a very good thing, not simply something to be tolerated. I may be unique in my lack of knowledge on a variety of subjects, and I am sure that there are many in this House, and outside, who would want to describe at length my ignorance on a range of issues. I acknowledge that; we cannot be experts in every subject. We know more about certain subjects than others, based on our interests and our experience, but there are many, many issues where our knowledge is limited. I have many such subjects. How on earth are we supposed to learn about them? How are we supposed to learn about the different points of view that people have in a debate?

There are many occasions when constituents contact me about issues on which I have very limited knowledge, inviting me to agree with them about something and take forward a particular point of view. It may be a very popular point of view, at least superficially. I like to say to my constituents, “I understand the point you are making. You appear, at face value, to be making a very good point. But before I commit myself one way or the other I would like to hear the other opinion.” If it is not a popular opinion, with no great groundswell of public support for it, that does not make it any less valid and it does not make it any less important that the voice is heard. Occasionally, the only people prepared to put such a point of view are lobbyists, and in order to do that they are often paid by the organisation concerned. I think that is a perfectly respectable thing for them to do. The view may well be completely unpopular and it may be beyond the pale for many people, but it is entitled to be heard. Before people make decisions in this House about issues that will have a bearing on people’s future livelihood, they are entitled to have heard the opposing point of view, too.

Just because somebody is lobbied vigorously does not mean that they necessarily have to agree with the person doing the lobbying. I make no apology for being available to people. I serve on the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and I make no apology for allowing people who have a genuine interest, and organisations that have a financial interest, in the field of culture, media and sport, no matter which side of the argument they are on, to come to see me to let me know their view. That means that when we have evidence sessions before the Committee I can better understand the issues. It can prompt me to put certain points of view to others giving evidence.

Lobbying is therefore an essential part of the democratic process, and if we want to have good laws in this country, we should be making it as easy as possible for people to lobby us on their interests. We should not be doing anything to make it harder—anything that deters them from lobbying us or deters MPs from seeing them. The whole agenda is going off in completely the wrong direction. Parliament is much healthier thanks to the lobbying industry.

To be fair, I think that the promoter of the Bill would concur with many of my comments and would argue that the Bill seeks not to stop lobbying, but to legitimise it, and to make it more acceptable to the public—to clean it up. If I understood, that was also the case that the shadow Minister made: the Bill would legitimise, not stop, lobbying and make it seem more above board. That is a naive view. I do not think it will happen. I see the merit of the view of thinking, “Hold on. This lobbying is a bit murky, a bit behind closed doors. I wonder what’s going on. Let’s try and open it up, and all of a sudden the public will think lobbying a mighty fine thing,” but I am afraid they will not think that.

In fact, I suspect that instead of combating that attitude the Bill would make those points of view even noisier. If every MP had to register every meeting with a commercial or any other lobbyist—how on earth that would work, I do not know, but that is the agenda in the Bill—does anyone really think that certain interest groups and members of the public who take this cynical view would say, “Well, that’s fine, because it’s now all above board”? No, they will pore over every statement we make and every meeting we have had, and say, “Well, they’re only saying that because they had that meeting with that particular group.” This would not legitimise lobbying or make it any better. It would make it even worse, in terms of public opinion. It is naive to think otherwise.

[Chi Onwurah]

To clarify, my view is not that a register would mean that everyone would think lobbying is fantastic—I would not want to answer for the consequences for the industry in that regard—but that opinion would be better informed and that living in a democracy we want better informed debate and a better understanding of the access, means and process of power.

[Philip Davies]

I appreciate the shadow Minister’s view, but I simply do not agree with it. I do not see where the lack of transparency is. I have no problem telling anyone who asks me about which organisations I have met. If my constituents want to know who I have met—what lobbying firms and organisations—I would have no problem telling them, and I would like to think that that would be the attitude of most of my colleagues on both sides of the House. I do not see where the secretiveness is. If anybody is in an organisation relating to culture, media and sport, whichever side of the argument they are on, I am happy, time allowing, to meet them. As far as I can see, that is perfectly transparent. So I do not see the problem the Bill seeks to solve.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, I oppose the Bill in principle. It will be a dog’s dinner, to be honest, and will not deal with any of the perceived problems we have heard about. In fact, the Bill is probably the worst of all dog’s dinners.

Let me turn to clause 1, which deals with the registration of lobbyists, and to the fact that there would be a register and the fees that would be charged. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North had an interesting exchange with the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, about fees. The promoter not only intended to be helpful but actually was helpful in setting out the fees that he thought would be charged. However, I share my hon. Friend’s cynicism about fees, in the sense that we all know where they start off but there is no telling where they will end up, particularly when a bureaucracy has an audience that has no choice over whether to join. People will have to join because it will be the law of the land for them to join, so the bureaucracy can end up charging what it likes.

Let me therefore say to the promoter of the Bill—I hope the Minister will hear this too, because if she and the Government are so misguided as to go down this path, we may as well try to make it as good as we can—that it would be helpful to have a cap in the Bill on the fees that could be charged. Just to make a suggestion, perhaps the fees would be no more than the £200 to £300 that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife seemed to think would be suitable. That would at least remove the issue of people thinking that the fees would go up and up, in a never-ending spiral, to try to satisfy a never-ending bureaucracy that would grow up as a result of this Bill.

We all see how these things work. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North talked about how such bodies start off being self-funded but end up having to be funded by the state. I think he is probably right. It is not an exact comparison, but we are seeing the start of something similar with the Press Complaints Commission. It is a self-funded body, but it is seen as being too close to the industry it is supposed to be looking after, so people are asking whether that is good enough and whether we need to do something else or get the state more involved. We can see how these things develop, and there is no reason why the same would not happen under this Bill.

I am sure that people will correct me, but it seems to me that clause 2 would introduce the offence of non-registration of one’s organisation. Then there is another criminal offence under clause 3 for breaching the code of conduct—the Labour party created lots of new criminal offences when it was in government and it appears to be continuing the same theme in this Bill. The promoter of the Bill said that we should not worry because everything would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval, and that that was fine—let me say in passing that he has more confidence in parliamentary scrutiny than I do—but as far as I can see the Bill makes no great provision for parliamentary scrutiny. Parliamentary scrutiny is what we are doing now, by discussing the merits of the Bill. It is the council set up under this Bill that would prepare the code of conduct with which, under clause 3,

“those included on the register shall comply”.

It will not be Parliament that draws up the code of conduct, so there will be no parliamentary control there. Once we had passed this Bill, the council would be free to establish the code of conduct as it saw fit and that would be that.

Clause 3 then says, in subsection (2):

“The Secretary of State shall give statutory effect to the code and any revised code by order.”

There is no great parliamentary scrutiny there either. We are basically giving the Secretary of State huge powers to act on his or her own terms and whatever he or she happens to think is the right thing to do. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, I have a great deal of time for the Minister, but she will know, as we all do, that she will not be the Minister for ever, and we might not get as good a Minister in future. Indeed, we might be left with one who is not as talented and sensible. We might—if we want to be very depressing—end up with the Labour party in government. Who knows what we might end up with at that point? [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. What I do know is that we are going to get straight back to the Bill and not get into speculation about the next election.

[Philip Davies]

As ever, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are quite right. I was getting carried away with myself—the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife did not help when he invited me to consider the prospect of a Lib Dem Government, which does not even bear thinking about. I will move on, for the sake of my own sanity more than anything else.

The idea that there will be a great deal of parliamentary scrutiny of the terms of the register and the code of conduct is not one that I recognise from my reading of the Bill. Also, I asked earlier who would enforce the criminal offences that the Bill creates. There will no doubt be all sorts of vexatious complaints from people who do not like a particular industry, from people who have been lobbying someone about something, and counter-organisations that do not like a particular industry will put in vexatious complaints here and there. People will be contacting their local police and crime commissioner, their local chief superintendent and their chief constable, and putting pressure on them to investigate this or that case. The police’s resources are stretched enough as it is. I have been opposed to the reductions to the police budget that have taken place over the past few years. Surely at a time when the police budget is going down, the last thing they need is more of these kinds of offences to investigate, when there is much more bread-and-butter crime to be dealt with.

Then we have to consider the Crown Prosecution Service. What will be the chances of getting a conviction for such offences? We all know what the CPS is like. It is very reluctant to take a case to court unless there is a cast-iron guaranteed certainty of a conviction. There will be all sorts of complaints relating to whether the code of conduct has been breached, for example, and it is hard to imagine the CPS taking anyone to court, no matter how much time the police have spent investigating a case.

The whole thing is a complete dog’s breakfast, and that is before we even come to the definition of lobbying in clause 4. Clauses 1 to 3 were bad enough, but clause 4 is the worst clause of all. We have had an interesting debate on the definition of lobbying. There is so much to say on that, and so little time in which to say it. I do not intend to speak at length. As you will know better than anyone, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am always anxious to proceed at a pace on a Friday so that we can get on to the next piece of legislation, and I do not intend to do anything different today. I will make a few remarks about the definition of lobbying, but I just want to say to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife that I hope his second Bill, which I trust we will get on to in the not-too-distant future, is better than his first one. The first one has not been a good start.

Clause 4 gives the definition of lobbying as

“any activity carried out in the course of a business or employment which are undertaken for financial gain and are designed to influence the Government of the United Kingdom, Parliament, any local authority in England or any member or employee of any of those bodies in formulating its official policy.”

We could spend hours talking about clause 4, because it contains all sorts of loopholes, flaws and omissions. The whole point of anybody approaching a Member of Parliament, on any basis, is to lobby them. It might be to lobby them because the person believes strongly in something, perhaps in their local community, or to lobby them for financial gain. It tends to be one or the other. Someone might come to see me because they want to reduce the amount that they owe to the Child Support Agency, for example. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to come and see an MP about. I cannot always sort such things out, but I will always do my best for my constituents. They are lobbying me for financial gain, of course they are—it is a perfectly legitimate, respectable thing to do.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife seems to be trying to distinguish between different types of financial gain. From his definition in the Bill, he seems to be saying that some kinds of lobbying for financial gain are fine, while other kinds are not so fine and need to have something done about them.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am nervous about intervening on the hon. Gentleman and prolonging what has been a genuinely good discussion. Briefly, I am drawing a distinction between someone who is remunerated for carrying out the activity of trying to influence, and someone who receives a financial reward if they are successful. The former is lobbying; the latter is not.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman tries to concoct some distinction through his Bill’s definition, but I do not accept the distinction he is trying to draw. For me, lobbying is what people do to Members of Parliament for whatever particular reason they have. It is perfectly legitimate, and I see no point in drawing a distinction between different types of lobbying—as if commercial lobbying is bad and any other kind of lobbying is good. All lobbying is good, and Members of Parliament should be open to all sorts of lobbying. They can take anybody’s self-interest into account when they are listening to the lobbying. I am sure we will all have said at some time, “Well, of course, you would say that, wouldn’t you, given the situation you are in.” We are all capable of doing that.

When I read the Bill, I presumed that it was all about protecting the public and giving them more confidence in the system. I do not think that that would be a consequence, but I can at least see the motivation. From what the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife said in his opening speech, however, the Bill seemed to be much more about protecting us from commercial lobbyists so that we do not get hijacked at a constituency surgery or something like that. I do not need protecting. I can protect myself and look after myself. If I do not want to listen to somebody’s argument, I will tell them I am not interested in what they are saying. I am perfectly capable of doing that without the help of the hon. Gentleman and his Bill. Frankly, if any Member is not capable of doing that, they should perhaps consider whether they are in the right profession. We certainly do need legislation to protect Members from people coming to see them and trying to force an issue down their throat. I would hope that we are all perfectly capable of dealing with that.

In conclusion, the Bill is unnecessary. I disagree with it in principle; I think it is going completely down the wrong lines. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, even if I thought this was a good thing in principle, I would remain of the view that the Bill was a very bad attempt to act on it.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)]

I join those who have contributed to today’s debate in congratulating the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on securing a debate on this Bill, and, as I understand it, he has another five on the Order Paper today and four last Friday, which is no mean feat. I thank the hon. Gentleman for having brought today’s proposals to the House and for allowing us to have what I think has been a very constructive debate.

Albeit from one of my ministerial colleagues, I have certainly learned a new word today—“dissensus”, which is presumably the opposite of “consensus”. I think it is a fine word and that it has a place in today’s debate—perhaps as a description of some hon. Members’ comments—but I am more interested in the opposite idea of consensus. I know we have all acknowledged how complicated the issue is and how important it is to be careful to get such legislation right.

The Government are committed to introducing a statutory register of lobbyists. Following the election of May 2010, the Government said in the coalition’s programme for government:

“We will regulate lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists and ensuring greater transparency.”

We said in our consultation document:

“The purpose of the UK register is to increase transparency by making available to the public, to decision-makers and to other interested parties authoritative and easily-accessible information about who is lobbying and for whom. This will help ensure that those seeking to influence decisions do so in a way that is open to scrutiny, improving knowledge about the process and the accountability of those involved in it.”

At this point, I pause to pay tribute to the notion of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that anybody in public office ought to be able to hold a robust conversation with anybody who comes their way. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife would agree with that.

Another important point in our consultation document is that

“the register is not intended to capture or deter a range of activity that is essential to a vibrant democracy. So, for example, the register is not intended to cover the normal interaction between constituents and their MPs. Nor should the essential flow of communication between business leaders and Government, civil figures, community organisations…and so on, be included.”

I think that helps to provide an answer to some of the many and varied points made today about the appropriate bounds of this debate.

Let me say something about transparency. The Government already release a significant amount of information—which Members and anyone else who is observing our debate can find on the website data.gov. uk.—and we have made a clear commitment to increasing the transparency of what we do and making it easier for the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account. That has resulted in the quarterly publication of details of ministerial meetings and Government procurement, and a number of other items of public interest.

I acknowledge what was said by, for instance, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) about the importance of transparency and the efforts made by many Governments in that regard. In my view, the present Government publish an unprecedented amount of information about those who are met by Ministers and senior officials, but at present it is not always obvious whom those people represent. The Government therefore want a register that will bring more transparency to the lobbying process.

With that in mind, I accept that some elements of the hon. Gentleman’s proposals have merit. I think he grasps the importance of having a relatively simple register that does not impose disproportionate burdens on those who are required to comply with his Bill. The Government are also determined to avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens that would prove detrimental to the United Kingdom economy. I am very mindful of the costs that may be associated with the statutory register, and I want to explore that issue fully as we develop and introduce our own proposals.

The hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of avoiding ambiguity when defining lobbying activity. That, too, is a view that I heard loud and clear in the responses to last year’s consultation. The Government are making it a priority to consider a wide range of definitions, including international definitions. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), who gave us a tour d’horizon of the systems used elsewhere. The parameters of the chosen definition will be made very clear in the context of the UK lobbying industry: I intend there to be no scope for ambiguity, so that we can ensure the success and effectiveness of the register.

The hon. Gentleman also recognises that there is little appetite for a publicly funded register of lobbyists, and his proposals for a fee-based system are certainly worth considering. A range of responses to the consultation dealt with that point; they can be found in “A Summary of Responses to the Cabinet Office's Consultation Document ‘Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists’”, which has already been brandished by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East.

There are other parts of the Bill which I believe need further exploration. There is, for example, the hon. Gentleman’s proposal for the establishment of a lobbying registration council, for which he was taken to task in some detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). I think that it is an interesting idea, but, like others, I should like to know more about the council’s membership.

The hon. Gentleman proposes that the Secretary of State should be able to decide, through secondary legislation, what level of information disclosure should be required of those who are on the register. I should like to go into the matter in more detail with the hon. Gentleman. I look forward to working with him constructively on that and other issues, including the issue of the code of practice which his Bill empowers the council to draw up. That is clearly a significant role for the council, and I should like to know how the necessary authority and expertise could be channelled in a way that would enable the code to be effective and enforceable.

I think that there is much to applaud in the hon. Gentleman’s Bill, but it raises further questions which, as I know he agrees, need to be explored fully. I look forward to working collaboratively with him on those issues.

[Philip Davies]

Not too collaboratively, I hope.

[Miss Smith]

I can only assure my hon. Friend that on Fridays in the House we all seek to have debates that are to some degree collaborative.

Voting Age

Philip Davies Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Williams]

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think he should compare giving a person the opportunity to vote—voting takes five or 10 minutes every five years, or every four years for council elections—with sending them to war. The debate is purely on the merits of giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote. Those who support that change believe they have the maturity to exercise that right and responsibility. I make no comment about other rights and responsibilities.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman says it is a matter of people having the maturity to make such decisions, but not too long ago, the House, presumably with his support, voted to increase the age at which people are allowed to buy cigarettes from 16 to 18. If he and the House believe that people at age 16 are not capable of making a decision on whether or not to smoke, why does he believe they are capable of deciding which party should be in government?

[Stephen Williams]

We have heard four similar interventions from coalition colleagues, and I have the same answer. I do not believe there is an absolute age at which every single right and responsibility accrues. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, I agree that there are very good health grounds for tobacco control and for making 18 the responsible age for consuming a product that is harmful to health. I would say exactly the same about alcohol.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Williams]

I am going to make a little progress. I have given way to everyone who has intervened for the first time, and I know many other hon. Members wish to speak.

As I was saying, these excuses have been used every time anyone has proposed extending the franchise, but in 2013 young people do not just have a good education, they have information at their fingertips via their phones and iPads. They are able to absorb information from all over the world in a completely different way to that contemplated by anyone back in 1968 when this House last debated and then voted to lower the franchise. Family pressure will always be there. We have all met people who say that they vote Labour or Conservative because their family always voted that way. Now, however, there are plenty of countervailing views not just in school or college, but in the bedroom and living room via the internet, where people can weigh up how they see the world and how they want to play their part in changing it, or indeed keeping it the same, if that is their political persuasion.

The longstanding justification for changing the voting age has been the range of rights and responsibilities that various Members have mentioned. There is a long list, from the right to drive a car, the right to join the Army or a trade union, and the right to receive benefits or pay taxes. The waters have been a little bit muddied in this area, partly because of my party being in the coalition, because young people on the minimum wage no longer pay income tax thanks to the fact that we have raised the income tax threshold. Of course, they still pay national insurance and VAT, so Jefferson’s maxim of no taxation without representation still stands.

[Philip Davies]

On that point, people pay tax based on their income, not their age. Presumably, massively talented child actors who earn an absolute fortune working on films pay tax on their income if it goes above a certain threshold. If an eight-year-old child star earns a fortune and therefore has to pay tax on that income, is the hon. Gentleman putting forward the view that that eight-year-old should be able to vote?

[Stephen Williams]

I advise the hon. Gentleman not to pick an argument with somebody who was a tax consultant before he became an MP. Such a person—Daniel Radcliffe or whoever else he was thinking of—would probably have that income held in trust by their parents until they reached the age of 16, or whatever the trust says, and the tax allowance goes with the parents. It used to be a classic bit of tax avoidance.

There are plenty of different ages where there are different rights and responsibilities, from the right to be tried in court for a criminal act performed from the age 12 onwards to receiving different amounts of minimum wage up until the age of 21. I think the most compelling comparison of all is the right to marry, which will be extended when the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is introduced, and the age of consent to sex. Surely the act of bringing another human being into the world is much more fundamental than the opportunity to vote. If we think that young people are capable of being good parents at the ages of 16 and 17, surely they can have the right to go and vote.

Giving young people the right to vote would also rebalance the changing demographics of the franchise. We all know the power of the grey vote and the higher tendency of pensioners to turn out and vote. The Inter- generational Foundation has recently published an interesting report—

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

When the hon. Gentleman was in those schools, telling the young people how well educated, well informed and intelligent they were, and how they should be able to make all those decisions, did he also explain to them why he did not think they were intelligent, informed or educated enough to make a decision on whether or not to smoke?

[Fabian Hamilton]

I share the view of the hon. Member for Bristol West that there is not one age for everything. We allow our young people to drive at the age of 17, but not to vote at that age. Why are they deemed old enough to be in charge of a vehicle that could be a lethal weapon, but not old enough to vote? Why do we allow them to join the Army or get married at the age of 16, but not allow them to vote? There are different ages for different activities in our society. Also, protecting young people from the pervasive influence of the dangerous habit of smoking—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) wish to intervene on me again?

[Philip Davies]

It was the hon. Gentleman who was leading with his chin and telling us how well informed and well educated those young people were. They are either well informed and well educated, or they are not. If they are so well informed and well educated, surely they are more than capable of making a decision on smoking, too. We cannot say that they are well informed in one area but absolutely clueless about everything else.

[Fabian Hamilton]

I do not believe that they are clueless; a lot of young people are well informed. The issue of smoking and health is different from marriage, driving a vehicle or fighting for one’s country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fabian Hamilton]

I would answer my hon. Friend—and he is a very good friend—by saying that we have to make a judgment, and that young people have to demonstrate whether or not they are able to make the sorts of judgments we expect in their choice of who they want to represent them. In my experience—and, I am sure, in my hon. Friend’s experience—a 14-year-old does not quite have the maturity or ability to make that judgment, whereas most 16-year-olds certainly do. The point was well made by the hon. Member for Bristol West—we will not have loads of 16-year-olds suddenly heading off towards the polling station when they become 16. In fact, the young people are more likely to be 17 or 18 when the election comes about—unless it is in local government, as many of our towns and cities have annual elections three out of four years.

The age may well come down to 14 as young people get more mature, but we are debating votes at 16. In that case, I think, as many hon. Members and most of my party colleagues think, that from 16 onwards young people are mature enough, bright enough and educated enough to make those judgments. [Interruption.] That is my view; I know my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has a different view.

Let me move on to the issue of school councils. I do not know whether many Members have attended elections for school councils or spoken to any school councils, but I have been invited, as I know have many Members, to meet them—including often to primary school councils, too. [Interruption.] I am staggered—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Shipley wants to keep on making comments from a sedentary position, I will allow him to make an intervention. Otherwise,I would be grateful if he stopped.

[Philip Davies]

If the hon. Gentleman is using school councils as an argument for extending the vote, he should remember that he himself said that they take place at primary school level, too. By that ruthless logic, I presume he is now going to advocate giving primary school children the vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call Natascha Engel.

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am calling the hon. Lady because only recently have Members on the Government Benches started standing, which is perfectly within their prerogative. I am saving them up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I will do my best to stick to that time scale, Mr. Speaker, because I am anxious for other Members to have an opportunity to speak.

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel). As she knows, I admire her greatly. On this particular issue, however, I am afraid that I cannot support her.

It is a topsy-turvy world that we live in, Mr. Speaker. Today I found myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman)—I had thought it very unlikely that I would ever find a subject on which I could agree with him, but I am delighted that we have finally settled on at least one—and also listening to members of the party of the nanny state on the Opposition Benches giving lecture after lecture about the benefits of giving people responsibility for making decisions about their own lives.

I have been in the House for eight years. For eight years I have sat opposite Labour Members who have lectured us on how we cannot let people take responsibility for their own lives. People cannot make decisions for themselves; the state must intervene and make the decisions for them. Yet, today of all days, we have been told that it is absolutely crucial for us to give people responsibility for their own lives and trust them to make decisions. I hope that the same pattern will be followed when it comes to other issues, and that from now on the Labour party will adopt the approach of trusting not just 16 and 17-year-olds but people over the age of 18 to make their own decisions on how they live their lives. If that is the only consequence of today’s debate, it will have been worth while.

I tried to jot down the arguments that I heard today for reducing the voting age to 16. A common theme emerged: Members had visited local schools, had spoken to 16 and 17-year-olds at colleges and in sixth forms, and had been so impressed by the quality of the questions that were asked and the opinions that were formed that they concluded that it was time to give those young people the vote.

[Fabian Hamilton]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Philip Davies]

I would normally, but I want everyone to have an opportunity to speak.

Let me say from the word go that I spend a lot of time visiting schools in my constituency—primary and secondary schools—and that, in my view, some of the most challenging questions that a Member of Parliament is ever asked are asked by people who are at school. I have thoroughly enjoyed debates with very talented people of all ages in schools, some of whom have been greatly interested in politics and some of whom have had no interest in it at all.

As with so many other issues, the voting age is always a matter of judgment. There will always be exceptions to rules. There will always be 16-year-olds who have the deep interest and maturity that would enable them to make informed decisions when voting, and there will always be 18-year-olds who do not possess the same level of maturity and interest. There will always be anomalies of that kind. This debate is not about individual cases; it is about what we think should be the general principle. That is the judgment that must be made.

In my view, the argument that many 16 and 17-year-olds ask very intelligent, very searching questions and are able to engage in a sensible debate is not a sufficient argument for giving them the vote. In fact, I would contend that the most searching questions that I am asked as a Member of Parliament come from kids at primary school rather than from 16 and 17-year-olds. Primary school children tend to throw questions at us that we would never have expected, and which we have never heard of or thought of before. They catch us totally off guard.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Philip Davies]

I would like to, but, as I said earlier, I want to give others an opportunity to speak.

The point is that although those young people are capable of asking very intelligent and searching questions, it does not immediately follow that we should give them the vote. If that were the basis on which we were making these decisions, I would have to agree to give seven-year-olds, eight-year-olds and nine-year-olds the vote because they ask some of the most searching questions. So it is completely spurious to trot that argument out as a way of saying that these people should be able to vote. This is not just about people’s education, intellect or ability to ask searching questions; it is about people’s life experience, too. That is what gives people the basis on which to vote. It seems to me that 18 is a far better cut-off point than 16. I am perfectly happy to concede that these are matters of individual judgment, but I believe that 18 is the right point.

The main point I want to make relates to this idea about people’s education and intellect, and how well-informed they are. Hon. Members have been telling us that that level is higher than ever. If this was a matter of principle, I would have more respect for their opinion. If they held a deep-seated principle that 16-year-olds have the education and information to make these informed decisions, I would have more respect for it, even though I might not agree with it. But that is not the case, because all the people who have so far advocated reducing the voting age to 16 are exactly the same people who voted to increase the age at which people could decide to smoke from 16 to 18. The point is that people are either informed or they are not—they are either educated or they are not. They are not educated on one matter of voting but completely clueless on everything else. They can either make an informed decision or they cannot. I agreed with increasing the age at which people could buy cigarettes to 18, because I believe that 18 is the right age at which to trust people to make such decisions. It is entirely logical to have the voting age and the age at which people can buy cigarettes at 18, because 18 is the age at which people should be able to make those decisions.

[Stephen Williams]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I cannot give way because of the time pressures. It is completely illogical to say that people are so well-informed that they should be able to vote but they have no idea about whether or not they should smoke. People say, “Well, smoking is harmful for you”; the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) says that it is a matter of public health. But that is an argument for banning smoking altogether. If people wish to say that they want to ban smoking altogether, let them say that—but they do not do so. They say, “We want people to be 18 before they are able to make that kind of informed choice.” People have not been arguing for banning smoking; they have been arguing for raising the age limit to 18. The same should apply to voting as applies to smoking. It cannot be that one is suitable for 16-year-olds and one is suitable for 18-year-olds, as that is simply illogical. Therefore, it is not a matter of principle for people that 16-year-olds are able to make these informed choices; it is a matter of convenience.

There is nothing so nauseating and ridiculous as seeing MPs trying to court the youth vote—trying to appear trendy by wanting to pursue these sorts of youth matters. That is what this is all about; it is about MPs trying to look trendy and youthful in their constituencies. To be perfectly honest, it is rather pathetic. It would be better if they at least had some sound logic behind their views and really did trust 16-year-olds to make decisions—all decisions. What we have heard today is hon. Members saying that they believe that 16-year-olds are capable of voting but are not capable of making other decisions that affect their lives. Voting can be very harmful. I say to hon. Members that if the public ever decided to put the lot on the Labour Benches into government again, that would be very harmful to them. So it is not just smoking that is harmful when people make a bad decision at 16; voting can be a very harmful thing, too.

I believe that people should make a decision at the age of 18 on all these matters, be it whether to smoke, whether to drink alcohol and whether to vote. The people who take an opposite view have not yet persuaded me and they have not come up with any logical reason to support their belief that the smoking age should be increased from 16 to 18 whereas the voting age should be reduced from 18 to 16. It is a nonsensical argument and I do not support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I believe absolutely that if we start to encourage voting at an early age, where that is supported and people are educated about their rights and responsibilities, we can make voting a lifelong activity, and concentrating on 18 to 24-year-olds misses that huge opportunity. I will say a little more about that later.

Let me talk about some of the things that the young people at the APPG said. Yes, they are young people who are engaged. However, an important point about youth organisations and youth workers is that we actively go out to engage not only with those aspiring young people, but with young people from all walks of life to enable them to have their say in civil society. Carly stated that many young people are dissatisfied with local issues but struggle to know how to become properly involved in politics. She argued that there was a need for better education and noted that not all adults made arguments based on solid reasoning. Another young person stated that political apathy from some young people is not a valid reason to exclude those young people who are engaged, and noted that not all adults vote. Steve said that a lot of older people lacked an interest in political engagement and awareness but the same ideas about requiring a level of knowledge for 16 and 17-year-olds was not placed on people over 18. A number of young people argued that politicians are able to ignore their views because they do not have the vote, and compared the loss of education maintenance allowance and the increase in tuition with the protection of benefits given to the grey vote.

Some voices were raised against enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds. One young person felt that they should not be enfranchised because they do not have experience of life outside the home, but she was challenged by someone who argued that many people now do not move out of their home until they are in their thirties, so that is not a valid reason to stop them having the vote.

The main thrust of the arguments against changing the voting age was lack of knowledge, and very strong opinions were voiced, both by those in support of votes at 16 and by those against, for the need for effective citizenship education in schools. They also argued that it should be part of the Ofsted inspection framework to ensure that such education was being carried out in all schools in a good way.

I am sure that we have all knocked on the doors of people who do not vote because they do not know how to do so or who to vote for. I believe that we have a duty in a civilized society to educate people about their civil duties, including voting. If done effectively, that should increase turnout by all future voters.

Many schools already undertake a lot of activities, such as mock elections, at the time of general elections, but, sadly, that rarely happens each year, meaning that four cohorts can miss out altogether.

That encouragement to vote—enabling young people to understand the political process and to vote at 16—should be viewed as positive. Voting at 16 would instil a pattern for lifelong voting. However, whether or not we believe that the voting age should be lowered, we clearly should be doing more to educate young people and, indeed, older people about how and why to vote.

We can all bandy polls about and I want to quote an online poll from The Guardian, which found that 53% of people were in favour of lowering the voting age. Of course, if a more right-wing paper conducted a similar poll, it may well come up with a different answer, but one accusation that cannot be levelled against readers of The Guardian is that they are not deep thinkers who will not have considered the pros and cons of lowering the voting age.

[Philip Davies]

I would not be so sure about that.

[Julie Hilling]

I am sure about it. The Votes at 16 coalition says that

“16 and 17 year olds are knowledgeable and passionate about the world in which they live, and are as capable of engaging in the democratic system as any other citizen.”

These are people who are already seen as capable of voting for the leader of their respective political parties.

The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly has urged the Committee of Ministers

“to reconsider the age-related restrictions placed on voting rights in order to encourage young people’s participation in political life.”

I share those views about the passion, knowledge and ability of young people.

Of course, our three Crown dependencies—Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man—have already given votes to 16-year-olds. Scotland will allow 16-year-olds to vote in the referendum, and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies have both voted in favour of votes at 16.

Some have argued that young people will not be able to make an independent decision and will vote the same way as their parents. Let us be realistic: it does not matter whether someone is 16 or 61, many people still vote the same way as their parents. I must confess that the first time I voted, I voted the same way as my mother, but I also have to say that I have never, ever voted the same way again. Our challenge is to educate and inform, so that people of whatever age can decide for themselves who to vote for and why.

Algeria

Philip Davies Excerpts

Friday 18th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s remarks. He makes an important point about how France and Britain in particular should work together. Obviously, it is better to find African solutions, whether in Somalia, where neighbouring African nations have played an important role, or in Mali, where we hope that west African countries will play a role, but clearly countries such as Britain and France, with good relations, good contacts, good knowledge of African countries and good partnerships with them, should be working together. There are opportunities to put aside some of the traditional divisions between Anglophone and Francophone Africa and recognise that it is in our interest to boost the capacity of all African states to help deal with these problems. We should work very closely with the French as we do that.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), there might be some concern that the Algerian Government did not take up my right hon. Friend’s offer for the use of British special forces. Does he know why that offer was not taken up, and what assessment have the Government made of the expertise and capability of the Algerian forces to secure the release of the maximum number of hostages, given that so many British citizens are in danger?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me be clear: of course, we offered to help and assist the Algerians in any way we could. Obviously, there are limitations on what we can do, given the logistics and time it takes to put teams together and get people to the other side of the world. On the Algerians themselves, we should show some respect for and understanding of the fact that that country has fought a long civil war against the most aggressive and violent form of militant Islam. We should also recognise that, yes, we have expertise and pride ourselves on the brilliance of our special forces, but clearly the Algerians felt that they had to make decisions very quickly and felt that there was an urgent threat to life, so decided to act as they did. As I said, I regret that we were not informed in advance, and of course the offers to help were, and still are, there, but we have to understand that it was about the danger they faced and they felt they had to act.

European Council

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am so pleased the hon. Gentleman is looking forward to my speech. He will obviously read it very closely, which will be worth while. Clearly, this country has some choices to make about Europe within this Parliament, and we have already made some big choices. We have said no to more powers being passed from Westminster to Brussels, and unlike the previous Government, there have been no powers passed. We have said let us get some powers, such as the bail-out powers, back from Brussels, and we have got those back. We have said let us get a better financial deal, and I am confident that we will get a far better financial deal than anything negotiated by the Opposition. But of course there will be a choice for all political parties, the hon. Gentleman’s included. As the eurozone changes, as Europe develops, there will be a choice to make in the run-up to the 2015 election to set out how we are going to take the British people with us to make sure that we get the best future for Britain in Europe.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

After the last European Council, the Prime Minister indicated that he favoured an in/in referendum. Further to the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), in reply to which the Prime Minister seemed to oppose an immediate in/out referendum, may we take it that he now supports an in/out referendum, perhaps in the next Parliament? If he does introduce that policy, I can assure him that he will have a great deal of support from those on the Government Benches and also from the public at large.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful, as ever, for my hon. Friend’s advice, which is always candid and straightforward. I will make sure that he gets a copy of my speech in the middle of January and he will able to study it closely.

Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Friday 30th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on introducing the Bill. It would be fair to say that we do not agree on everything, but I think we agree on more than he realises. We certainly agree about the Bill. He works tirelessly not only on behalf of his constituents but on behalf of the important causes to which the Bill relates.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on their work in this field. They have shown great courage in speaking out on these matters when other people may not have done so. We should all be grateful for what they do. They were both worthy recipients of awards at Dods’ The House magazine awards this week. I cannot think of two more deserving winners. This has been a red-letter week for them.

I want to tease out some points about the Bill’s three main clauses, which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central could perhaps clarify. Even though I support the Bill, it is important to clarify on the record any points that may arise.

Clause 1 relates to the mental health of MPs. It abolishes section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983, and also relates to the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments. The Cabinet Office website states, so it must be true:

“The provisions in Section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983 replaced provisions in the Mental Health Act 1959 which itself replaced provisions in the Lunacy (Vacating of Seats) Act 1886.”

As far as I am aware, section 141 of the 1983 Act has never been used. Perhaps it is good to get rid of legislation that is anachronistic and has never been used, but we could ask whether there is any point in doing so. As I understand it, the only time that any of this legislation has been used was in 1916, when Dr Charles Leach was removed from his seat after a protracted illness. I think it is worth getting rid of this section, but I note that it has never actually been used.

I want to flag up a potential anomaly. I assure the House that, as usual on such occasions, I do not intend to speak for long. I say that for the avoidance of doubt, because I do not want anybody to be concerned. I merely wish to rattle through a few points. Under the Bill, there would be no bar on somebody standing for Parliament with a mental health condition of any kind and there would be no procedure to remove somebody who developed a condition while they were in Parliament. Does that mean that the Bill could create a situation in which the constituents of an MP end up with effectively no representation for an entire term of office because a condition is found to exist very late in an election campaign or early on in a Parliament?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with that point, but there is no difference between that example and a Member who has a stroke and goes into a long-term vegetative state. There is no provision to remove such a Member. The Bill is just saying that mental illness should be on a par with other medical conditions.

[Philip Davies]

I agree with that point. I am merely using this opportunity to ensure that people know exactly what the Bill would do and to check whether there are potential anomalies. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that the same situation applies to people with other conditions and that there should perhaps be no difference between them.

Another anomaly that may arise is that somebody could stand for Parliament and continue as a Member of Parliament who may not be eligible to vote because of the existing regulations on voting. As this is a Third Reading debate, I must talk only about what is in the Bill, rather than what should be in the Bill, but I hope that you will allow me to say in passing, Mr Speaker, that perhaps the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central in this field is not yet done. Although I support the Bill, it might create anomalies that we have to come back to on another occasion. I therefore hope that this is a work in progress.

I am not sure whether the provisions on juries deal with somebody who has just been released from being sectioned or who ought to have been sectioned but has not been because nobody knows about their condition. Perhaps the Bill might have been better if it had included an additional time period for such people. I am not sure whether the lack of such a period will cause a problem. The point has been well made throughout the debate that mental illness is not necessarily permanent or constant, but safeguards need to be in place to limit the exposure of those with recent conditions and those who have perhaps not been identified.

The proposals on company directors cover the model articles of association for normal companies and right-to-manage companies. Unless I have missed something, which is not impossible, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a company from using the old provisions in its articles of association if it chooses to deviate from the model articles of association. Will companies that are already in existence be affected by the Bill? If so, and if it has an immediate effect, what will happen if a company has already invoked this particular part of their articles of association from the model version and is in the middle of proceedings? If the Bill affects only new companies, does that mean that the 2.5 million companies that are already registered with Companies House will not be covered? It is important that we deal with the model articles of association because they are the default position, but have we missed something with regard to individual articles of association? What happens if a company has only one director and they have the most serious long-term mental health condition?

I support my hon. Friend—the whole House should support and congratulate him—but there are anomalies in the Bill, and the Bill might create even more. I hope the House can tackle those in future to ensure that we do what my hon. Friend and other hon. Members intend, which is to give the best possible opportunities to people with mental health problems, who for far too long have been unfairly discriminated against under the law.