Business of the House

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have discussed this matter before in business questions, so I am interested in the point he makes. I confess that I have not seen that answer to that question. I will look at it and talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport to see whether we can advise him further on their plans.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

On Monday of this week, 615 of my constituents lost their jobs at Sharp’s solar plant in Wrexham when investment, which was hard won in 2004 under the previous Government, ended. May we have a debate on this Government’s chaotic investment policy on renewables, which is deterring international investors from bringing jobs to the UK for constituents such as mine, who will have no jobs this Christmas?

Business of the House

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an issue that is important not only to his constituents, but to those of other Members in that travel corridor in the south-west. Given that wider interest, he might find that there is a wider constituency of Members who might be able to seek a debate. I certainly encourage him in that regard. He knows that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport was with him in his constituency over the summer to discuss those issues. I will of course ask him to respond further, but it is very much in the minds of Ministers, not least because they have a feasibility study looking at some of the most notorious hot spots on roads across the country, including the A303, the A30 and the A358 in that travel corridor.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is presiding over increasing chaos in his Department, with a black hole existing where the independent living fund used to be, and there are still questions about interference with the Public Accounts Committee. Will the Leader of the House arrange for him to come here and speak for himself?

[Mr Lansley]

I seem to remember that the Secretary of State was here last week—on Monday, I think—to answer questions and speak for himself and for the Government, and I am delighted to say that when he does so he contrasts the situation in which we are creating jobs with the one under Labour in which jobs were not being created. He contrasts the situation in which every time people move off benefits and into work, work pays, which was not the case under Labour, ensuring that there is serious benefit associated with working. He also talks about the fact that we have effective systems, including under the Work programme, that are delivering effective routes back into work for the long-term unemployed.

Business of the House

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and join him in welcoming the Amnesty International event to which he refers. As it happens, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi, the Senior Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was in Afghanistan yesterday, when she raised with Deputy Foreign Minister Ahmadi and others the need to uphold the historic gains in women’s rights since 2001. We work in partnership with the Afghan Government and others to further progress the rights of all Afghan citizens, including the equal rights of women and girls. As for a debate, it would clearly be helpful at some point, but it might be premature in advance of the presidential and provincial elections in Afghanistan scheduled for April next year.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal found against the Department for Work and Pensions on the very important issue of the independent living fund. Today, serious allegations have been made about the Department’s conduct. Is it not correct and proper that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions should come to this House to be held publicly accountable to all Members on these issues and not have private conversations with the Leader of the House that are supposed to satisfy my constituents?

[Mr Lansley]

On the hon. Gentleman’s latter point, the purpose of the conversation was so that I could give the House the assurance that I clearly have given to it. On his first point, we were pleased that the Court of Appeal upheld the way in which we undertook our consultation on the future of the independent living fund and accepted that it had been carried out properly and fairly. By contrast, we are disappointed with some aspects of the decision. We will examine the judgment very carefully, consider its implications, and, in due course, take and announce decisions on how we intend to proceed.

Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My view is that as a result of the reforms, Members are accountable through the transparent registration of interests, which includes the amount of time they spend on those interests. They are accountable to their constituents through the register in a transparent way, and their constituents will judge them. The implication of what the hon. Member for Hemsworth was saying is that none of that has caused any problem and all is fine.

David Miliband was a director of Sunderland football club and engaged in other consultancies, and the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) may also be engaged in activities. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) is a consultant to a company, which apparently is absolutely fine, as is the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), who is in his place. I refer to those right hon. Members because apparently it is fine for them to do those things and it does not impinge on their constituents or responsibilities, yet the hon. Member for Hemsworth wants to stop them doing that. How absurd is that?

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House confirm that he notified each of those Members that he planned to refer to them in the debate?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I have done that.

In our parliamentary democracy it is well established and accepted that many MPs have responsibilities beyond those of individual Back Benchers representing their constituents. There is nothing unusual about that. We do it as Ministers, as Chairs of Committees, and even in the distinguished role of Deputy Speaker of the House. Such responsibilities do not in any sense constrain Members of the House in being effective advocates and representatives on behalf of their constituents. I have not heard a serious suggestion that MPs should be barred from taking on responsibilities that go wider than their role as a constituency MP. The motion does not preclude Members from maintaining second jobs or paid outside interests; it merely sets out to impose a ban on a very specific type of employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I was rather disappointed because the implication of the motion seems to be that if someone is in business, they ought specifically to be excluded from being able to pursue those interests in this House. The hon. Member for Hemsworth was perfectly happy for people in all sorts of profession to continue—doctors, farmers, lawyers and, presumably, architects. There are all sorts of partnerships and a sole trader or partner would be able to continue to work in their interests, but a director of a company would apparently not be able to do so. I presume that he would exclude paid directors of companies that are limited by guarantee, which are often not-for-profit organisations. I fail to see why so many such organisations, which do good work, should be precluded from having any Member of Parliament participating in them.

The motion refers to the

“wider regulatory framework for second jobs”.

I failed to hear in the hon. Gentleman’s opening speech what he meant by that, so perhaps we will hear some more about it from the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) when he concludes the debate.

There are practical issues that mean that the proposal is flawed. It refers to a director but not to an employee of a company, and it does not refer to partners—trustees have been mentioned. A range of circumstances have been ignored and left out, and the effort is to preclude directorships specifically. It refers to “consultancies”, although that is undefined, and apparently being an adviser would be okay. Or would every adviser be treated as a consultant? If we put the word “adviser” into the motion, instead of referring to consultants, it would no doubt extend widely among those on the Labour Benches, but apparently that is okay—[Interruption.] I will not go through every entry in the register, as I have already done that, but there are many circumstances in which Members are advisers to organisations. Apparently, I do not understand whether they are consultants or not.

As I have said, many professions, including many that are very time consuming—there are Members in the Chamber who consume quite a bit of time in writing books and articles and taking part in broadcast activities, but that seems to be perfectly okay—are ignored.

I cannot see from the motion who would police the new rules. Who would define who was a director for this purpose? Who would undertake the difficult task of deciding what was a consultancy? I cannot imagine the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards would welcome the task of monitoring the provisions—we might hear whether she would. Do we need a new quango? Would Members rather the function be given to IPSA—[Interruption.] I think that was an ironic cheer from Opposition Members. IPSA considered the matter in its latest report and stated, perhaps with a moment’s regret, that it was not within its remit. It then made an ex cathedra statement about it anyway—

[Ian Lucas]

Ex cathedra?

[Mr Lansley]

Well, IPSA is a bit cathedral-like, is it not? A bit papal, really.

IPSA considered the issue and, although it decided it was not within its remit, said that

“the proportion of MPs with significant outside earnings is small.”

At least IPSA agrees with the hon. Member for Hemsworth that there is not a problem, but, like most people, it imagines that when there is no problem it is not necessary to find a solution.

The solution—the key to which is in the Bill published today—is transparency. Members are free to divide their time between their different and varied responsibilities. They represent constituents, scrutinise legislation, hold the Government to account and pursue the interests of their party—all those things take up a lot of Members’ time—but they must judge how to balance and allocate their time. Individual Members will be accountable through the register for where their interests lie and to their constituents for how they undertake their responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Before I was elected, I ran a solicitors practice as a sole practitioner. I gave up my business, which I had worked hard to build up, to become a Member of Parliament. I made a commitment at that time that I would work full time as a Member of Parliament. I think that was the right thing to do.

I do not believe that my giving up that business and stopping practising as a solicitor has prevented me from being a member of the local community, maintaining my relationship with the legal profession in my community or keeping in touch with the people I represent. Government Members are promulgating the extraordinary idea that to remain in touch with the outside world, we have to receive a salary. We do hundreds of things in our job as Members of Parliament which ensure that we have a connection with our constituents.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Lucas]

I will make a little progress and if I have time, I will give way.

It has always amazed me that some Members of Parliament continue to do other jobs. Why would someone become a Member of Parliament if they wanted to be a company director or a consultant? They could be a company director or a consultant without being a Member of Parliament. Becoming an MP is not a route to becoming a company director or a consultant—or is it? I always ask myself why it is that companies want MPs as consultants or directors. Is it for their unique insights on the world? Even the cleverest of MPs—and there are some very self-regarding MPs on the Government Benches today—should not flatter themselves. It is clear why such posts are offered to Members of Parliament. It is not because of their unique intelligence, but because they are Members of Parliament. It is because of the influence that Members of Parliament have and the access that that buys.

[John Hemming]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I appointed myself to that job and that when I did so, I was not a Member of Parliament, although I had stood for Parliament? It was therefore not a factor in the consideration.

[Ian Lucas]

As interesting as the hon. Gentleman thinks he is, I was not talking about him.

No one should have privileged access to an MP. Even more importantly, no one should be able to secure access to an MP by paying them. For that reason, I welcome the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition that MPs should be prevented from holding paid directorships and consultancies. Such arrangements give those who pay for it unique access to MPs.

It was interesting that the Leader of the House referred to a job offer that he received after he became a Member of Parliament. I would be interested to know why that company decided he was the person they wanted to give a job to. Does he know? Can he tell us? I would be delighted to take an intervention. Let me tell him the reason: it is because he is an MP and the company wanted access to him.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I wonder whether we can get a bit of consensus across the Back Benches. Is not the real problem those second jobs that take MPs away from their constituencies, such as being a Minister? Can we agree that Ministers should not be paid any more than Back Benchers?

[Ian Lucas]

For far too short a time, I was a Minister. I got there in the end. I believe that being a Minister benefited my constituents. They understood that being a Minister was an important part of my job as a Member of Parliament. Ministers are also Members of Parliament, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that they in any way diminish themselves as MPs by being Ministers.

The key to the motion is access to MPs. I have not spoken about the hundreds of thousands of pounds that some Government Members earn. [Interruption.] I will not name them, because unlike the Leader of the House I have not given them notice. However, MPs should have a look at the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: a number of Members earn hundreds of thousands of pounds. This issue is about buying access. MPs should look at themselves in the mirror and ask whether they are really so clever that companies, which are engaged in business MPs have no experience in, really want them to join their boards for their personal knowledge and insight. The reality is that companies want privileged access to MPs and are prepared to pay for it.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I know the hon. Gentleman reasonably well. Does he accept that some people take extra jobs based on their experience? For example, I help a small business in Liverpool, which I have known for nearly 20 years. It came to me and said, “Could you help us do what you did for us 15 years ago?” That was the basis on which I took that work. I also found it interesting to travel to Liverpool.

[Ian Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman says he helps that business. I help businesses in my constituency, but I do not get paid for it—that is the key point. I have an equal obligation to all my constituents. I do not allow access to my time to be bought by an individual or a company. We need to support the motion.

Points of Order

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, to which I respond as follows. First, if material has been leaked to the media in the way he suggests, that is entirely inappropriate and I deprecate it in the strongest possible terms. Important announcements should be made first to the House and it is a discourtesy to the House of Commons if people have pursued alternative methods.

Secondly, as to the question of a prior commitment to there being a debate on the Floor of the House, that is not a matter for the Chair. I note the moral point that the hon. Gentleman is making in a sense. He may well seek to make it again in business questions tomorrow or, if for some reason he will not be available to do so, it will not be beyond his wit to ensure that the point is aired. It will be a question of airing it for a second time, given that he has done so for the first this afternoon.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have given notice of this point of order, as you are aware, Mr Speaker, and I am glad that the Leader of the House is present, because it relates to the accuracy of statements given to the House by a Government Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), who has responsibility for disabled people. On 4 July, in answer to a question of mine about Wrexham Remploy, she said:

“I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Wrexham site is being sold with a view to making 10 to 20 jobs available for some of the ex-Remploy staff.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2013; Vol. 565, c. 1085.]

I had no knowledge about that transaction, so I wrote to the hon. Lady, who wrote back:

“I can confirm that the disposal of assets at the Wrexham site has the potential to create up to 20 job opportunities for disabled people including ex Remploy employees.”

Those two statements are not the same. In the interests of accuracy, the hon. Lady’s statement on the Floor of the House contradicts the letter that she subsequently wrote to me. I have corresponded with the Minister to give her the opportunity to deal with this matter. I wrote to her yesterday telling her that if she did not respond to me I would raise it on the Floor of the House. She has not had the courtesy to reply. What steps can I take, Mr Speaker, to ensure that the record that my constituents—ex-Remploy workers—heard from the Government Dispatch Box is accurate?

[Mr Speaker]

I want to make two points. First, no request has been made to me by the Minister to correct the record. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is in pursuit of salvation on this matter, but I think I might fairly make the point that he has found his own. He asks what mechanism is available to him to, in a sense, put the record straight, and the answer is that his ingenuity and indefatigability have enabled him to do precisely that through this point of order. It may well be that it would be more to his taste for the Minister to come to the House, but Ministers are responsible for their own words and decisions on whether to provide a correction. Some people might feel—I leave it to colleagues to judge—that the hon. Gentleman has now substantially achieved his objective of clarification. Perhaps we can leave it there for today.

Bills Presented

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Andrew Lansley, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Vince Cable, Oliver Letwin, Miss Chloe Smith, Tom Brake, Jo Swinson and Joseph Johnson, presented a Bill to make provision for establishing and maintaining a register of persons carrying on the business of consultant lobbying and to require those persons to be entered in the register; to make provision about expenditure and donations for political purposes; to make provision about the Electoral Commission’s functions with respect to compliance with requirements imposed by or by virtue of enactments; to make provision relating to a trade union’s duty to maintain a register of members under section 24 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 97) with explanatory notes (Bill 97-EN).

Selective Licensing (Housing Standards) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Graham Jones presented a Bill to allow local authorities to apply selective licensing conditions to improve housing standards.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 28 February 2014, and to be printed (Bill 98).

Business of the House

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I have seen in the past how parish plans have successfully informed local development frameworks, but we have gone further and entrenched in statute the ability of those neighbourhood areas to shape their own area. That is very encouraging, and already more than 150 neighbourhood areas have been designated. He, like others, will be pleased that the Department is running a support programme from April to help local authorities with neighbourhood planning.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

As the only parliamentary vote we have had this week was one where seven parties came together in the national interest to defeat the Conservative party, is it not an appropriate time to extend the cricketing metaphor employed by the Leader of the House, for the Government to draw stumps, to return to the pavilion—where most of the Conservative Back Benchers appear to have gone today—and to allow Members to have a say on the non-existence of a forward programme for this Government?

[Mr Lansley]

The premises of that question are almost entirely wrong. I will not re-run the vote on Tuesday, but I am absolutely clear that what we set out to do was in the national interest—more particularly, it is in the democratic interest for votes to be of equal value. Those on the Opposition Benches have to explain why they have continuously, over many years, sought to frustrate people in having their vote count equally in more equal-sized constituencies. On the idea that there is no forward programme, what did the hon. Gentleman think we were doing when we published the mid-term review? That is a comprehensive statement not only about the delivery of the coalition agreement but about additional clear, strong priorities. This week, he saw the reform of child care and support for child care provision come through. Those and other priorities are coming through, as the mid-term review set out.

Business of the House

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend seems to have constructed a very particular question about something that may not have occurred because relatively few Government Bills are conducted on a free-vote basis, but I will gladly look back to see what the precedents are. Let me reiterate what I said in last week’s business questions: we have not yet introduced this Bill. My hon. Friend seems to be more knowledgeable than I am. I do not have a timetable for its introduction; I know that we will do it soon but I have not established a date. When the Bill is introduced, we will of course make it very clear how it is properly to be considered.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is

“a terrible time to have the diversion and uncertainty which build-up to a referendum would entail”.

Those are not my words but those of the Business Secretary, reported in the Financial Times as what he is going to say today. Is not the reason the Prime Minister will not come to the House with a statement following his speech the fact that he cannot speak on behalf of the Government he leads because they have no coherent policy on Europe, and that is damaging British business and British interests?

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid I simply do not accept a word of that. The Government are very clear about what we are doing. We are conducting a review of competence the purpose of which is to enable this country to engage in a negotiation that would lead to a more competitive and more flexible Europe. I heard the hon. Gentleman’s leader saying on a radio programme this morning that he was in favour of a more flexible European Union and that he believed that there were powers that needed to be brought back to this country. He and his party appear to be willing the end but denying the means.

Business of the House

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have not had the opportunity to see the questions to which he refers, although I would be glad to. As far as I am aware, collective ministerial responsibility continues to apply as it always has done, as has the ministerial code.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

On the question of keeping the House informed, before Christmas I asked the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice about proposals for new prisons in north Wales, but he refused to meet Members of Parliament from north Wales. As we speak, the Department is briefing journalists on new prisons and on a super-prison that might be placed in north Wales. Why are the Government so disrespectful of Members of this House that they are briefing Lobby journalists, rather than Members of Parliament, on the matter, which is of profound concern to my constituents?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that a written ministerial statement was laid before the House this morning—[Interruption.] He says that he wants an oral statement. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice laid a written ministerial statement that is very full and detailed, and there will, of course, be opportunities in future, for example during Justice questions, for Members to ask questions on that.

Business of the House

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am delighted to hear that the City of Chester is contemplating having a theatre and that it has the strong support of my hon. Friend. He will know that decisions on capital funding for projects like this are made by the Arts Council at arm’s length from central Government. If he has not already done so I encourage him and his local authority to contact the Arts Council to make sure that this is on its radar and that there is a constructive dialogue about how we might make progress. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be invited to the opening if and when it is built.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Project Merlin was announced to the House with great fanfare by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Its catastrophic failure led the Chancellor to make a series of announcements in his Mansion House speech, but despite the fact that we had a Treasury statement last Thursday, the Chancellor still has not come to the House and given us an opportunity to question him on this matter. I know that the Leader of the House genuinely believes in the importance of this Chamber, but why have we not had an opportunity to speak to the Chancellor about this?

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

I am not sure how Mr McTaggart has managed to get himself into that situation. There are two things he ought to do almost straightaway. First, he should go to the national governing body for boxing in Great Britain, whose president is the former Sports Minister—that would be a very good start. If that fails, however, he should approach the Olympians organisation run by the British Olympic Association, which exists precisely to ensure that former members of the Olympic family can attend events.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement, as these are the last Culture, Media and Sport questions before the London 2012 games.

I would like to take this opportunity to express the Government’s thanks to everyone involved in the organisation of this tremendous project and, on behalf of the whole House, to wish Team GB the very best of luck in getting a record haul of medals this summer. With 43 days to go until the opening ceremony, the project is in a strong position. We have shown beyond doubt that Britain can deliver big construction projects on time and to budget, and yesterday my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and the Olympics announced that there was still nearly £500 million in the contingency fund. We can also be proud of the legacy that the games will leave, including the transformation of east London, the regeneration of our tourism industry and thousands more children taking part in Olympic sport through the school games. Some 2.7 million people have already lined the streets to see the torch, but we can be confident that the best is yet to come.

[Ian Lucas]

Freeview has been a hugely successful way of delivering free-to-air digital television services, but its future is threatened by the upcoming 4G auction. Will the Minister look at the £180 million that the Government have set aside to assist those whose signal is affected, even though Sky will not like it?

[Mr Hunt]

I am a Freeview subscriber, or customer, myself. We have put in place a comprehensive programme, but Ofcom is now consulting on whether it is adequate, and we will listen carefully to any advice we receive from it.