Lobbying
Lord Cryer Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jon Trickett
That brings me to my next point. The Prime Minister said that sunlight is the best disinfectant and I agree, but I do not believe that the proposals mentioned in the amendment match up to the requirements. Let me explain why. There are three reasons. First, it was drawn in such a way as to cover only the narrowest section of third-party lobbyists, which is less than a quarter of the whole industry. What is the point of having a register of professional lobbyists that will not register all professional lobbyists? Secondly, there is no sign of the Government including in the Bill—it is certainly not in the White Paper—a code of conduct that would regulate the register. Even the voluntary code that covers the more ethical part of the industry already has a code of conduct. Why would we want to have a lower statutory threshold than that which the more ethical section of the industry already imposes on itself and its own members?
My third objection to the consultation, as the Government call it, is this: given that the Government are not proposing a code of conduct, there can be no sanctions applied against lobbyists who breach the code. Again, this is a lower standard than the industry’s existing codes. At the moment, any lobbyist working within the current ethical voluntary register is forbidden to engage in any improper financial relationship with any parliamentarian, which brings us to the bones of the issue.
If we have a voluntary register and someone breaches the code by having such a relationship with a parliamentarian, they will be removed from the register and will be unable to practise as a lobbyist. That should be written into legislation, but it is not envisaged in the White Paper.
The White Paper was
“possibly one of the most shoddy documents I have ever seen government produce.”
That is not my view, but that of a practising, professional lobbyist. Francis Ingham, director general of the Public Relations Consultants Association, said of the White Paper that the Government’s proposals were “unfit for purpose”.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The code of conduct, which my hon. Friend mentions, is habitually broken. For example—he mentioned this sort of contravention—the code says that parliamentarians should not be paid by lobbying companies that are signed up to the code, yet many Members at the other end of the corridor are directors of lobbying firms and so presumably are in receipt of payments. That breaks the code of conduct, but nobody does anything about it.
Jon Trickett
The problem is that many companies and lobbyists—the Australian I mentioned, for example—do not participate even in the voluntary code, which is why there must be statutory provision.
Mr Lansley
No, I will not give way. It would be better for me to make my speech and explain what we are planning to do than simply to try to respond to more interventions.
We did not hear from the Opposition about this subject; they did not respond to our consultation last year. It is interesting that the first time we heard from them was when we announced that we would introduce a Bill before the summer, at which point they tabled their motion calling for the Government to introduce a Bill. This is an interesting concept: they are not jumping on someone else’s bandwagon; they are jumping on ours. This is a flagrant example of that.
In the event, the hon. Member for Hemsworth did not offer any practical ideas; instead, he offered assertions and slogans masquerading as policy. He should have had the honesty to admit that the Labour Government put the issue in the “too hot to handle” box. They did not resolve the complex nature of the problem, which has been revealed by the divergent responses to the consultation. The responses showed that we are far from achieving consensus on the nature of regulation that is required.
The Government will set out to promote the culture of openness that best delivers the positive behaviours and public confidence that we all seek.
Mr Lansley
I will give way to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I apologise to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer); I will give way to him in a moment.
Mr Lansley
We will introduce a Bill before the summer recess but, given the nature of things, we might not be able to proceed with its consideration until the September sittings or later. That would afford people an opportunity, in the context of the Second Reading debate and elsewhere, to look at how we have resolved the issues.
John Cryer
I was listening to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the demands that the register would place on lobbyists. Will that include having to provide financial information, such as how much has been spent on lobbying? Many Members on both sides of the House think that that would be an important part of the jigsaw.
Mr Lansley
As my hon. Friend will know, the responsibilities that we have as Members relate to the Members code, which does not include a responsibility for us to publish the details of our meetings, the names of those whom we meet, and the purposes for which we meet them. That protection is afforded to Back Benchers and, of course, to shadow Ministers as well. We as Ministers are clear about the fact that we publish our diaries, on the basis that we exercise responsibilities and power. If shadow Ministers take the view that they have no power and are therefore not accountable for whom they meet, for whom those they meet represent, and for the influence that those people are seeking to exert, they will have to argue the case themselves.
The Opposition motion calls for a Bill to be introduced before the summer recess. I am pleased that, in this instance, they agree with the Government. Well before the motion was tabled, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that a Bill would be introduced before the recess. The motion also calls for cross-party talks. That comes as something as a surprise, as the Opposition have not previously demonstrated an interest in this issue. They have not sought constructively to engage the Government in discussion of it during the three years for which the introduction of a register has been under consideration—foreshadowed, of course, in the coalition programme-—and they made no response to the Government’s consultation last year.
Now the Opposition say that they want a register of “professional lobbyists”. I still have no idea what they mean by that, or what is the logic of it. Are they referring to everyone who lobbies Government or Parliament, and who is paid? I do not think that they mean “professional” in the sense of having a relevant professional qualification, so “professional” must mean “paid”, and that would capture an immense number of people.
Mr Lansley
No. I am about to end my speech.
In contrast, the Government’s proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists focus on cases in which further clarity is required. The introduction of the register is part of a broad package of measures to tighten the rules on how third parties influence our political system, along with reforms to ensure the accountability of outside organisations that seek to influence the political process. Together, those two elements constitute a further, clear demonstration of our commitment to transparency in the political system.
As was demonstrated by the response to the Government’s consultation, the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists is a complex issue, and one that has required careful consideration by the Government. Our proposals will deliver a register that will increase transparency without placing disproportionate burdens on those who legitimately lobby Government and Parliament. We will present those proposals before the summer recess, and we will continue to work with those who have engaged with our plans.
I welcome the Opposition’s new-found interest in our proposals, and hope that they will now seek to engage constructively in making our political system more transparent. Perhaps, on reflection, they will agree to engage positively in the publication of shadow ministerial diaries, in order to ensure that transparency exists from their point of view as well.
On that basis, I ask the House to support the amendment and, if necessary, to reject the motion.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I echo earlier comments made about lobbying. I have always supported a lobbying Bill to create a register of lobbyists in a transparent and properly regulated way, but I have no objection to lobbying per se. It is part of everyday life—or it should be if we are doing our jobs properly. We get lobbied on a weekly basis, on all sorts of issues, by church groups, mosques, gurdwaras, temples, community groups and all sorts of individuals. A woman came to see me a couple of weeks ago and said, “You are opposed to the sell-off of the Royal Mail, aren’t you?” When I said that I was, she said, “Well, on that basis you should also be opposed to gay marriage.” I did not quite follow the logic of that argument either, but she had the right to lobby me, and she did so, albeit in a novel way.
What worries me is when large concentrations of unaccountable wealth and power are brought to bear in the lobbying industry. Funnily enough, Jonathan Aitken said something similar when he was an MP and large business consortiums were lobbying for the contract to build the Channel tunnel. At that time lobbying was in full swing, and he—surprisingly in the light of subsequent events—said:
“What worries me most is that usually lobbying is genuine in the sense that it stems from little interest groups and concerned citizens. Here we see the Panzer divisions of big business, their heavy artillery and tanks trampling over all the small people’s interests which I want to see better defended.”
Most of us would probably want to see those interests better defended and certainly the Prime Minister seemed to want to see that three years ago when he said that lobbying would be the “next big scandal” to hit British politics. Lobbying has been the perennial scandal in British politics within living memory and probably before that, too.
The Prime Minister’s reference to lobbying was three years ago and since then we have seen two private Members’ Bills. One was in my name, and I offered it to the Leader of the House as a Government Bill, but he was a bit shy about taking it on. The other was in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). We also saw a Government consultation followed by countless commitments from various Ministers that a Bill would be produced, as we are always told, “in the near future.” Last year, the then Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), promised a Bill before he was moved in the reshuffle. His successor, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), is on the Treasury Bench and has, I believe, promised a Bill twice on the Floor of the House—but there is still no Bill.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly promised a Bill in Prime Minister’s questions over the past three years and after the last lobbying scandal a few weeks ago, the Deputy Prime Minister promised what he called “head to toe” political reform, including a register of lobbyists. That was on 3 June. I have no idea what he meant by that, but I suspect that he did not have much more of an idea what he meant either—he never normally does.
We still have no Bill, yet the scandals come regularly and frequently. Only last year, the treasurer of the Tory party, Peter Cruddas—we will all remember this—had to resign after promising access to the Prime Minister for a fee of £250,000. Months before that, Tim Collins, a not particularly lamented Member of this House, promised access to just about everybody and anybody in the Government.
We can go back before that. I have mentioned lobbying scandals in living memory, but probably the doyenne of political lobbyists from the 1930s and 1940s up until the 1970s was Commander Christopher Powell. His name is probably not familiar now, but years ago he was very well known and for a number of years he had an office in the House of Commons. It sounds extraordinary today that a political lobbyist who represented all sorts of clients should have an office in this place, but he did for quite a long time.
Members might remember the scandals attached to Ian Greer in the 1980s, which eventually made the front pages of just about the entire national press as well as the broadcast media in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Let us be balanced: there was also the cash for access scandal that involved Derek Draper, another person who is not particularly lamented by Opposition Members—at least, I hope he is not. I can say that with some passion, having dealt with him years ago.
As I said earlier, I by no means condemn the political lobbying industry. In fact, I suspect that most lobbyists do a decent job, do it honestly and are perfectly prepared to be transparent about it, but there is always the temptation to cross certain lines unless accountability and transparency are built into the system.
Mr Sheerman
Speaker after speaker has talked about the importance of openness, transparency and accountability. I absolutely agree with that, but does my hon. Friend agree that we should also allow the little person, not just the well-heeled and well-suited person, to lobby? Lobbying should be open to everyone; the problem is that too often those who can afford to pay a lot of money can lobby more effectively.
John Cryer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, but I think I covered that at the beginning of my speech. Most of us these days hold regular advice surgeries—for me, and, probably, for most right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House such surgeries are a weekly business.
The days when MPs never went near their constituencies and did not regard themselves as constituency Members are long gone. There was once a national MP for Blackpool called Walter de Frece who, despite the fact that he was the Member for Blackpool, never went near the place. In fact, he could not find it on a map. He struggled to find Britain on a map, because he lived in Monte Carlo. He came to Britain twice a year for the Budget debate and for Ascot, yet he was elected for years and years and was regarded as a successful constituency MP. While he was here, he would get a pile of House of Commons notepaper and sign the bottom, and then his secretary would fill in the rest. It sounds extraordinary, but because he managed to reply to a few letters—this shows how things have changed—he was regarded as a particularly brilliant constituency MP. Nowadays, that has changed beyond all recognition—not even in the safest seat could an MP from any party get away with such behaviour.
Let me return to the demands that I think the register should place on lobbyists. The criterion that it should only cover third-party lobbyists is unfair on the third-party lobbying industry. In-house lobbyists—that covers all sorts of organisations and companies—should be forced to provide information, which, as I said when I intervened on the Leader of the House, should include financial information. Big companies, wealthy organisations and even wealthy individuals can spend millions on lobbying, and that sort of information should be available.
Mr Allen
I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech and learning a bit of parliamentary history, too. Does he accept that the work of the Select Committee could be a starting point in defining what a lobbyist is as well as who is in and who is out? The Committee has suggested that anyone who is in a paid, professional role of lobbying should be covered. That would include in-house lobbyists, of course, as well as trade associations, trade unionists—that answers the point made by the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson)—think-tanks, campaign groups, charities and many others who would be required to register. Does he agree that getting the definition right is the starting point of a good Bill?
John Cryer
That is crucial. The definition in my Bill covered anyone who lobbied “for commercial gain”, which is similar. The starting point that my hon. Friend suggests is perfectly reasonable and would, I suspect, cover all the relevant companies, associations, trade associations and trade unions, as well as the big NGOs and people who hire third-party lobbyists or who have in-house lobbyists. Most trade unions and federations have in-house lobbyists, which is fair enough.
The important principle is that we must get transparency into the system. We are talking about a big industry; lobbying in this country is a successful industry worth £2 billion. There is no reason why it cannot continue to flourish and be successful as long as it is open and transparent, so that we know exactly what lobbyists are doing, who they are meeting and what sort of resources are being spent on achieving their aims.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The power of the House to regulate its own affairs is one of the fundamental building blocks of the constitution. That power cannot be given up, except by this House voluntarily surrendering it, which it has not done. No court in this land can question a decision made by this House to regulate its own affairs. It is arguable that the European courts could, but we can take away their right to do so by a simple piece of legislation. If we are to legislate, therefore, it should be to reinforce our self-regulatory powers and to remove the possibility of challenge. That would clarify what we can do, and we should then go ahead and do it.
John Cryer
Of course, technically it is not actually an offence for an MP to accept a bribe. A motion was passed—I have not got the information in front of me—in the 17th century that specifically condemned MPs who accept bribes, but it has never been enforced.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. My point about Sir John Trevor is that we should use the power this House has to expel a Member for taking a bribe. That is not the same as a criminal offence. Sir John was entitled, had he wished and had his electorate wanted him back, to stand for Parliament again. As it happened, the King promoted him to become Master of the Rolls, so he did not do too badly out of it in the end.
There is a difference between the penal power of Parliament and statute law and the requirement of an offence for a statutory punishment. There is no need for a specific offence for Parliament to act, which is a benefit because it is easier for us to expel a Member, and it leaves the person expelled with a right of appeal to his constituents. The British people would then be the ones to make the final decision. They would be entitled to decide whether the lobbying the Member had been caught up with was of a kind that they approved or disapproved of. Ultimately, it is right that we should trust the democratic forces of the electorate to judge our behaviour rather than parcelling it out to the judiciary, who I think are in a less strong position to judge whether what has happened is acceptable, right and proper in the political context in which it has taken place.
It is important to remember that we can also punish those who are in contempt of Parliament. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) that we need to use those powers to remind people that they still exist. By allowing them to wither on the vine, we have weakened the ability of Parliament to clean up its own Act. Had we done so over the expenses situation, we would not be in the sorry state we are now in with politicians being held in very low esteem.
I urge the Government, rather than rushing hastily to legislation, to consider whether the powers that already exist can be used to clean up our own act, and can be used in a way that overcomes the difficulties of definition that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), the shadow spokesman, spoke very clearly of in his speech. That is the centre point of legislating, but it is the hardest point to define.
I will leave hon. Ladies and Gentlemen with this thought: what happens when a constituent comes, accompanied by his accountant, as happened to me last week, to complain that he has been defrauded and wants me to do something to help him? His accountant is paid, is representing his views, and might be the only member of his firm, but he is clearly lobbying me. And then, what do we think of the Whips, who lobby me on an almost daily basis on whether I am to vote Aye or No, and are often successful in their desire to get me going in the right direction? Should we have a register of them to ensure that their behaviour is even more proper, benign and pious than it already is?
Business of the House
Lord Cryer Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I will, of course, take up the points that my hon. Friend raises with the Cabinet Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government. The Government are engaged in an ambitious programme of selling surplus public sector land and assets, not least in order to secure the building of 10,000 homes on that land. When we are selling properties, we must try to set an example by securing energy efficiency in those properties and advertising that fact.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
If the Government are struggling to produce a lobbying Bill, which they clearly are, they can have my Bill. It was produced two years ago and could be printed before the debate next Tuesday. It would certainly be far superior to any drivel that the Deputy Prime Minister might come up with.
Mr Lansley
The Government are not struggling to produce a Bill; we have set out the timetable and will introduce a Bill before the summer recess. The clauses for a Bill were published previously and were the subject of a consultation last year. In that context, it is a bit rich of the Labour party to talk about wanting cross-party talks on the issue, when no Labour MP, including those on the Opposition Front Bench, supplied any response to the Government consultation on the clauses that we published.
Business of the House
Lord Cryer Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
Let me be clear: as the Prime Minister made perfectly clear yesterday, that question has not yet arisen because no such decision has been made. The Prime Minister was clear, as he was in relation to Libya, that he will seek to secure an opportunity for the House to debate and express its view through a vote on these matters. It is, of course, a hypothetical question at present. The Prime Minister is determined, as is the Foreign Secretary, that the House should have the opportunity, as was the case with Libya, to express its view.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister has been trailing his lobbying Bill all over the press yet again, and this time his ideas seem to be staggeringly incoherent even by his standards. It is three years since the Prime Minister’s original remarks. When will the Deputy Prime Minister make a statement to the House or even present a Bill? After all, it is many months since the consultation exercise closed.
Mr Lansley
The coalition agreement is very clear that we will introduce legislation. The Prime Minister said in response to a question yesterday that we will legislate to tackle the issue of third-party influence in our political system. We are looking to introduce proposals before the summer recess.
Business of the House
Lord Cryer Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
May I press the Leader of the House further on the issue of a register of lobbyists? We have already had one lengthy consultation, myriad answers from the Dispatch Box and two private Members’ Bills, including a particularly brilliant one in my name. If the Government had got behind that Bill, it would now be on the statute book.
Mr Lansley
I will of course look—as Ministers regularly do—at how we can secure progress in relation to our commitment to this, but it is a complex area, as the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) has explained to Members at this Dispatch Box. I am sure that she will have a further opportunity to discuss this matter with Members.
Business of the House
Lord Cryer Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
Yes, I agree: it has been extremely encouraging to see the considerable progress that has been made, not least with academies and free schools taking such opportunities. For example, on EBacc take-up, in 2013 the number of pupils taking triple science will have gone up by 82%. That and other increases in the number of science students are very important for the future competitiveness and success of our students.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware that a massacre of London’s police stations, including Wanstead police station in my constituency, is under way. Apart from anything else, it is funny that Boris did not mention it until his campaign was over and he had been elected. Given the number of closures that are in the pipeline, may we have a statement from the relevant Home Office Minister?
Mr Lansley
As the hon. Gentleman will know, consultations are taking place about police stations across London. Responsibility lies with the police authority and with the Mayor in his capacity as commissioner, but I will of course raise the hon. Gentleman’s point with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice.
Business of the House
Lord Cryer Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are having a debate on the economy next Tuesday, which will present an opportunity to discuss many of the issues that have arisen from the autumn statement. I will certainly draw the attention of Treasury Ministers to this matter. It is worth noting that, not least because of the support that we are giving to the national health service, the number of people in this country who have private health insurance has gone down.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Leader of the House may be aware that the London fire authority is looking at a plan to shut 17 fire stations across the capital, which includes cutting 50% of the fire cover in my constituency, which has some of the poorest wards in London. This is creating alarm across all parts of the House. Is it possible for the relevant Minister to give a statement or to have a short debate?
Mr Lansley
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not remembering the precise date, but an Adjournment debate was initiated by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on fire stations and the fire and rescue authority. These are matters for the fire and rescue authority and the Mayor of London, but I do recall that Ministers responded to the debate. If there is anything to be added since it took place, I will ask Ministers to correspond with him.
Business of the House
Lord Cryer Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
First, I might have misunderstood the question from the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan). If I did, and if I got the organisation wrong, I will write to him.
I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) about Greece. I also have a constituent who is tied up with the Greek judicial system. I know that the FCO often does all that it can to help, but the Greek judicial system is somewhat obscure and difficult to penetrate, and one often needs to employ a local interpreter. There will be questions to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday, and my hon. Friend might have an opportunity to raise this matter again at that time. I will warn FCO Ministers that he is on the case.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 196, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)?
[That this House is greatly concerned by the Written Ministerial Statement of 24 May 2012 on the future of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA) and the proposal to reduce the scope of the authority as well as change the licensing agreements from six months to two years with no inspections on application for a licence; understands that the GLA is a Government body which is fully supported by employers including Marks and Spencer; recognises the invaluable work which is carried out by its officers and staff to ensure the safety of workers across the UK; further notes that the GLA was established after the cockle-pickers tragedy which occurred in Morecambe Bay in 2004, yet understands that the Government plans to remove this area of regulation from the remit of the GLA; asks the Government to recognise that any cut to the remit of the GLA will have entirely negative consequences; and calls on the Government to rethink its proposals which will put vulnerable workers at serious risk of exploitation, injury and death.]
The motion refers to a written statement sneaked out on 24 May, just before the recess, which heralds cuts to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. The House will remember that the GLA was introduced after the tragedy involving the Morecambe bay cockle pickers. The cuts will result in an increased rate of death and injury in certain industries. Surely that merits a statement or even a debate.
Sir George Young
I cannot promise an early debate. I have now seen the early-day motion, to which seven hon. Members have appended their names. I will write to the appropriate Minister and get a response to the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. I am sure that the last thing the Government want to do is to
“put vulnerable workers at serious risk of exploitation, injury and death”,
as the motion suggests.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Cryer Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Has the Secretary of State found time to explain the ministerial code of conduct to his new special adviser, and if so, when?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Cryer Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Vaizey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was privileged to visit Aardman’s headquarters. I gather that it has just held the premiere of “The Pirates!”, its new film. Those in the House with young children may want to go and see it. He is right that the proposal is about keeping talent in this country.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
7. Whether he plans to submit evidence to the Leveson inquiry on culture, practice and ethics of the press.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
Following a request from the inquiry, the Secretary of State will submit evidence as part of the elegantly named “module 3”, which is considering the relationship between the press and politicians. In addition, my Department is working constructively with the Leveson inquiry by providing background information where possible.
John Cryer
In that evidence, will the Minister at least say that the replacement for the Press Complaints Commission should be politically independent and independent of what used to be Fleet street?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Cryer Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend asks a good question. There is a balance always to be struck between the imperative of making an oral statement and the need to preserve time for the House to debate the issues before it on that particular day. We try to strike the right balance. Today, we have an oral statement from the Foreign Secretary and an important debate thereafter on Somalia. It would have eroded the time for the statement and the debate if, on top of that, we had scheduled for oral statement some of the written ministerial statements to which my hon. Friend referred. We try to get the balance right, but we are always open to fresh suggestions.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
4. Whether the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists will require any changes to the Standing Orders of the House.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
5. Whether the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists will require any changes to the Standing Orders of the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The Government published our initial proposals in the form of a consultation document on 20 January. Any effects on Standing Orders would best be considered in the light of what emerges from that consultation and subsequent legislation.
John Cryer
Does not the fact that there are links between serving parliamentarians and certain lobbying firms imply that there would be a need to change Standing Orders in some way? Does not this exchange reinforce the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister should have made an oral statement on the Floor of the House to launch the document, rather than fobbing us off with a written statement?
Mr Heath
I really think we need to understand that the House is not being fobbed off with a written ministerial statement, particularly when there is a consultation paper the hon. Gentleman can contribute to in the same way as every other Member. Consultation papers are there to consult, and it is perfectly appropriate to let the House be aware of a consultation paper that has been issued by issuing a written ministerial statement—a point you, Mr Speaker, have also made in recent weeks.