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

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Allen]

My hon. Friend is absolutely on the mark, as he normally is on these matters.

This situation is completely unacceptable. It makes the case very eloquently for the establishment of a House business Committee, but I am sorry to say that that proposal has been rejected by those on the Government Front Bench, even though it was in the coalition agreement to which the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats signed up. The Labour Opposition also signed up to the proposal, but it will not now be implemented. I cannot imagine any meeting of such a Committee, with parliamentary Back-Bench representation, that would not have identified this particular issue as an unacceptable way in which to treat the House. It would not veto the agenda for the next week, or anything ludicrous of that kind; it would raise such matters with the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in private and say that there must be a better way of considering this kind of legislation. The Wright Committee proposed the setting up of a House business Committee, and its absence reflects badly on those who promised to bring that forward within the first three years of this Government.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

As a fellow cricketer and someone who also believes in proper parliamentary scrutiny, I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. However, we have only two hours left, so will he now tell us his views on the amendments? Otherwise, we will have no time to discuss what the people outside want us to talk about.

[Mr Allen]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a sound point, and I hope that he and the House will forgive me, but it is important that people outside the House should understand why we do not have a full day to discuss this and why we have not had two days to consider the key issues. Those people who wish to campaign on the Bill did not know how to respond or how to contact their Member of Parliament. They did not know what the issues might be.

I came into the Chamber rather hurriedly this morning because, even minutes before I was due to get to my feet to speak, I did not know which matters might be votable today. I did not know which amendments might be discussed. I have been in this place for 26 years, and I know my way round the Order Paper, but even experienced parliamentarians did not know exactly how today’s business would be conducted, or how the amendments might be grouped. Mr Speaker, you have had a discussion about that within the past couple of hours. How is a constituent of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), for example, who cares about their charity and wants to get hold of the right hon. Gentleman, supposed to know what is going on? They might have wanted to ask him to listen to their points and to make a case on behalf of the local charity that they represent.

However, I shall take on board the right hon. Gentleman’s chiding, in order to pre-empt your own, Mr Speaker. I shall move on to the specific matter of the amendments that I tabled on behalf of my all-party Select Committee late yesterday, not long before the debate began today. Our main amendment to this part of the Bill, on lobbying, is amendment (a). It deals with the question of who is being lobbied. Our original report found that it was ludicrous not to include senior civil servants among those who should declare clearly, honestly and transparently that they had been lobbied.

I remember the debates on this matter well; members of all parties contributed to them. I will not go over that ground again, other than to say that a number of us—myself included—said that people never sought to lobby a permanent secretary. We noted that although getting in to see a permanent secretary involved a feat of genius, it would actually not do much good. That was because the permanent secretary would take the matter to the director-general who, in turn, would go to the desk officer. If people want to get something done—on nursery care, for example, or on cycle lanes—they do not go to the permanent secretary. They certainly do not go to them if big money is involved. They of course go to senior civil servants, which my Select Committee defined as being at grade 5 and above, and in our view those senior civil servants should be included in the group that is required to make a declaration in respect of being lobbied. That is self-evident and sensible. Excluding the very people who are lobbied the most in the Government will render the Bill an absolute laughing stock. We all know the truth of this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

That matter has been raised on a number of occasions. If he were involved in a firm of consultant lobbyists, absolutely, he would have to register as a consultant lobbyist.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House explain the position of a senior official who happens to chair a committee or run a quango that has decision-making powers?

[Tom Brake]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the third-party register of lobbyists focuses specifically on Ministers or permanent secretaries. That is what is before us today.

We are not persuaded that the calls to capture communications with special advisers are sufficiently strong to justify amending the Bill in the manner that Lord Tyler proposes. We are, however, aware that the discussion about including such communications within the scope of the register is likely to continue. We therefore propose as a contingency an amendment in lieu that would introduce a power for the Minister to amend the definition of consultant lobbying provided for by clause 2 so that it could subsequently, if necessary, include communications with special advisers. Such a power would enable Ministers to extend the scope as suggested if and when they were persuaded of the case for doing so without the need for primary legislation. It should therefore assuage the concerns of those who have asked that we do not eliminate the possibility of expansion of the scope if it is justified in future.

--- Later in debate ---

One need not fully embrace what NCVO said about the character of the Bill in the first place to recognise that we have arrived at what I hope continues to meet the principles of transparency in election campaigning while continuing to enable charities and voluntary organisations fully to exercise free speech on policies and issues.

[Mr Redwood]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that charities have never been able to use tax-privileged money to campaign for parties and individuals in elections, which is what he wishes to continue to be the case?

[Mr Lansley]

That is absolutely right. I am sure my right hon. Friend will recall—it has been interesting to have these conversations—that if charities comply with the guidance, called CC9, issued by the Charity Commission, we can be pretty confident, except in very limited circumstances, that they will not fall to be regulated under election law. It could happen if, for example, a charity pursued its purpose in a run-up to an election, received various pledges from various candidates or parties in relation to its objectives and then chose to issue details to the public. That could be held to be seeking to influence electoral outcomes. Frankly, however, our discussions have increasingly demonstrated a mature approach on the part of the charities, many of which have recognised that the Bill was not really about exempting charities and that only in very limited circumstances would charities fall to be regulated. Many charities completely understood and agreed that it was right for those who wished to influence election outcomes to do so openly and transparently. That is what the Bill is all about.

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

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

It is always a choice for Parliament whether to legislate in order to express what we hold should be immune from the courts, but there are significant disadvantages in legislating. First, parliamentary privilege has to evolve as Parliament evolves and as the law evolves. If we were to try and define what parliamentary privilege is in detail—well, all the advice that our Committee had was not to try and do so. Indeed, were we to try and do so in statute, we would be tempting the courts into limiting parliamentary privilege, perhaps far further than we intended.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

It seems to me that the kernel of the problem is that this is a Bill to regulate lobbying. An important part of an MP’s job is to lobby for his or her constituency and constituents, and we are paid salaries, so in that sense we are paid lobbyists; but surely that part of our role, like every other part of the role, must be immune from the interventions of the court and must not be in any way modified by the legislation before us.

[Mr Jenkin]

I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but it is not generally asserted that, for example, correspondence between him representing his constituents and a Minister is privileged, because it would be difficult to prove that that constituted proceedings in Parliament. I do not think, therefore, that we can seek to extend parliamentary privilege in the Bill. What we do as our job to represent our constituents is clearly not intended to be included in the regulation of lobbying. It would be intolerable if Members of Parliament had to register as lobbyists in order to represent their constituents, or indeed represent any other interests. I will return to that point later, if my right hon. Friend will forgive me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend. I just want to emphasise that the amendments I am speaking to deal with the narrower question of privilege, although I will return to the risk, which I think the Minister must address, of the wider drawing in of Members’ activities into the scope of the Bill.

[Mr Redwood]

Further to that exchange, does my hon. Friend not see my case, which is that if the Bill is in danger of restricting our privilege to write letters on behalf of our constituents as properly paid advocates for our constituents, we need to stop that happening? Otherwise, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) will not be able to campaign against something in her constituency by writing to a Minister without registering under the Bill.

[Mr Jenkin]

I will return to that matter, but when my right hon. Friend employs the word “privilege” in that context, he is not employing it in terms of parliamentary privilege. It is not a parliamentary privilege that protects our ability to write to Ministers on behalf of our constituents. That is not covered by parliamentary privilege.

With the indulgence of the House, I wonder whether I might quote the Lord Chief Justice when he made it clear that we should, if possible, avoid legislating on matters regarding privilege. He said:

“Parliament has to decide whether it has sufficient privilege to be able to conduct its business in the way that Parliament wishes. If you have reservations about that, you have to produce a system that enables you to have the conditions under which you can perform your responsibilities properly. If you had no real reservations about it, I would not go down the legislative route that defined, semi-defined, subdivided, allowed for, or exercised this and that, because you would end up in interminable discussions, and, in court, interminable arguments, about what that really meant. Unless you are dissatisfied with the way in which your privileges operate, I would leave this well alone.”

By that, I think he means that the courts are predisposed to defer to proceedings in Parliament, whatever statutes may say.

The 1689 Bill of Rights is one of those special statutes in our legal system that is implicitly present in every statute. We do not need to repeat what is in the Bill of Rights 1689 in every statute in order to immunise it for the purpose of parliamentary privilege. The one exception that we have made is in respect of the IPSA legislation—the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009—in which we inserted the words that I am proposing in my new clause:

“Nothing in this Act shall be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689.”

I submit that the House of Lords put that clause in the Parliamentary Standards Bill in rather extreme circumstances. When that Bill arrived in this House, it seemed that it was going to go into areas that were previously considered part of the exclusive cognisance of this House. It was going to refer to disciplining Members for what we did in this House, and that was going to draw parliamentary proceedings into the consideration of the courts in a way that was unprecedented. All that was eventually taken out by the House of Lords. In those exceptional circumstances, when the courts were under enormous public pressure to take more draconian action following the expenses fiasco, it was reasonable for Parliament to put that clause into that Bill, but generally we should try to avoid putting any reference to the Bill of Rights 1689 into legislation.

My amendment 1 suggested that we delete paragraph 1 of schedule 1. I note that the Government have now proposed that we remove both paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of schedule 1. Paragraph 1 removes language which is lifted from the Bill of Rights 1689, without referring to the 1689 Act. Because there is no reference to it, paragraph 1 does not place the wording in the special category in which the Act exists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Thomas]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who made an extremely interesting speech to which I listened carefully. Like him, I am encouraged by the Government’s decision to table the amendments deleting the two offending paragraphs to schedule 1. We tabled amendment 78 as a probing amendment, but I do not intend to move it if the Leader of the House is suitably convincing when he comments on Government amendments 28 and 29. Nevertheless, there is a series of questions that merit asking about how we got to this point and whether the amendments will resolve all the concerns.

I will deal first with some of the context of these discussions. Until the Government tabled their amendments, it appeared that they were determined to write into legislation a set of paragraphs that would have meant more Members of Parliament being affected by the Bill than actual lobbyists being registered under it. Lynton Crosby and all those in-house energy company lobbyists to whom the Government listen will not have to register because the Bill is still so badly drafted, but Members of Parliament raising concerns, perhaps on behalf of people under the age of 18 or asylum seekers fleeing torture who are resident in their constituencies, might have had to register.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very important that a shadow spokesman should be able to represent any interest group, company or activity in the country as they see fit and still receive their parliamentary salary without falling foul of the lobbying rules?

[Mr Thomas]

The right hon. Gentleman and I do not agree on much, but we agree on that extremely valuable point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barron]

On the two issues that we were concerned about, the Government have seen sense. This hasty piece of legislation has been changed so that we, as Members of Parliament, are not prevented from representing our constituents on wider issues. The day this Chamber can listen only to advice coming from the Executive, we may as well be in Stalinist Russia, and that is not something that I would feel comfortable with.

[Mr Redwood]

A couple of Opposition Members have raised the issue of paid advocacy and I want to reassure anyone following our debate that no one in this Chamber is saying that MPs should be allowed to receive top-up money from outside this House and then advocate the cause of those paying them. That is clearly wrong. It is against the rules and nothing in the Bill would facilitate it. I think we all agree on that, so that argument is a red herring.

The issue we are debating is the crucial one of the legitimate role of an MP and whether it can continue untrammelled by a Bill that could inadvertently capture legitimate things that an MP does. If the Leader of the House is going to guide us to reject the new clause, I want reassurance that the lobbying element of an MP’s job will be completely untouched by the way in which he wants the Bill to end up. In moving the new clause, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) made it clear that he is trying to resolve the issue of the legitimate work of an MP.

A very important part of an MP’s job is to be the chief lobbyist for their constituency but, as colleagues have said, we may also wish to be a lobbyist for another interest group that is not based in our constituency. It may be a very important part of a shadow Minister’s job to represent an industry, charity or group of underprivileged people who are not in their constituency, in order to shape national policy. Individual Members may wish to pursue similar themes, even if they are not prominent in their constituencies. It enriches our debates and makes for a fairer society if anyone from outside this House can find MPs who support their cause and who can be their advocates. We are lobbyists for all sorts of groups and interests throughout the country, whether they are in our constituencies or not. It is very important that a court or external body does not assume that, because we are paid a salary and because we lobby Ministers on behalf of the interests of people and companies throughout the country, we are subject to the rules under discussion.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that we are not seeking special privilege. We are saying that this Bill is designed to stop abuse of the lobbying system and I want a reassurance from the Leader of the House that it has not been worded in a way that inadvertently could trap MPs as if we were an abuse of the lobbying system, when the healthy expression of lobbying, through and of MPs, is fundamental to our democracy. I think that view is shared throughout the Chamber. The great difference between a free society and a tyranny or an authoritarian regime is that any group, interest, person or company in our country can try to find an MP who thinks they have a fair cause, and if they persuade an MP of that—without any payment of money or anything inappropriate—their cause can run in this House and have the chance of influencing Ministers.

I hope that the Leader of the House can reassure me that the Bill will leave absolutely no doubt that we can be lobbied and that we can lobby, and that we are the free lobbyist for anyone with a good cause.

[Mrs Gillan]

I do not wish to detain the House for long. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). When the Leader of the House responds to the debate and speaks to his amendments, it is very important that he makes it clear that we as MPs are not placing ourselves in any special position other than to represent the interests of others, which is why we have been sent to this place.

The two instances that I have raised in interventions are highly personal to me, namely HS2 and the National Autistic Society. When people throughout the country read the HS2 Bill they immediately interpreted it as a drag on their lobbying of Government and on MPs who want to speak against the project. More importantly, we have to make sure that charities and other bodies that seek our help do not misconstrue the situation and think that we will be gagged in any way. This is called the gagging Bill in common parlance, which is why I want to make sure that the Leader of the House gives us a reassurance, as I am sure he will. The one thing I know is that he has been listening very carefully to the cases that have been made across the board. Rather than detain the House any longer, I look forward to receiving the reassurances sought by Government and Opposition Members that the Bill will not inhibit us in any way.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

Yes, it is the Government’s policy that the annual canvass is a valuable part of the process. The hon. Gentleman will, I suspect, know as well as I do that it is for local authorities to resource that in the sense of providing the people to carry it out. He will also know that it has been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that the Government will ensure that financial resources are available to local authorities.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Just as we want to make sure that anyone who is eligible to vote is able to do so, we also need to make sure that only those eligible to vote do vote. Will the Minister remind us what checks there will be on an individual to prevent that individual from registering twice under different names?

[Miss Smith]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The innovation of data-matching will allow us to cross-reference, we hope, about 70% of electors against other sources of data held by the Government. That will, in large part, assist the endeavour outlined by my right hon. Friend. It will help to ensure that the register is both as complete and as accurate as possible, and that those who should not be on the register are not included.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees with my recollection of what happened on 27 June. I believe she also agrees with my arguments that these matters should not be left up to individual registration officers, especially given that their ability, resources, experience and enthusiasm vary considerably from one part of the country to another.

[Mr Redwood]

I remember my hon. Friend’s speech and she made her point very well at the time. I suggest that she claims credit and congratulates the Ministers on realising that she had a better Government policy than they did. We can then be one big happy family.

Business of the House

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The House knows not only that we will pay heartfelt tribute to service personnel, including the two who it was announced yesterday have tragically died in Afghanistan, but that the people of this country and this House will take the view that they have died in defence of the interests of this country and to protect this country and that we are in Afghanistan to combat a terrorist threat and, alongside that, to help put in place in Afghanistan a sustainable and more democratic country for the future. That is why they are there and we should honour and value the contribution that service personnel make.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the £1 billion-plus of losses in derivative trading by Network Rail? Some of us would like that money spent on trains and bridges over railway lines instead of in a second-grade investment bank.

[Mr Lansley]

I do not have an immediate opportunity for a debate on that subject, but if I contact my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary, he may well be able to give a reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood).

Business of the House

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind the House that questions on the statement must relate to the statement itself, and thus only to the implications of the change in business. They must not extend to the arrangement of business more widely, and certainly not to the issues of substance that will be the subject of the debate on Thursday. I hope that that is helpful to the House.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House ensure that on Thursday it will be in order to debate banking competition and the structure of the state banks, so that we can have a proper debate on banking?

[Sir George Young]

The question of whether a speech would be in order would be a matter for you in the Chair, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend will be able to see the two motions which we hope to table today and which, in that event, will be on the Order Paper tomorrow. I am sure that, if he catches your eye on Thursday, he will be able to couch his speech in such a way as to remain in order.

I said that there will be debates at 5.15 pm; I meant votes.

Backbench Business Committee

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I think I should make a little more progress as I have yet to explain what the proposal is, but I will come back to right hon. and hon. Members who wish to contribute.

The motion aligns the method of election to the Backbench Business Committee with that for other Select Committees. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) might feel aggrieved that he does not have representation on all the Select Committees of the House, but he does not because, on the basis of the formula, he does not have enough party members in the House to have that level of representation. The motion provides protection against unwarranted interference by a future Government in the election of the Chair—something that some hon. Members were very concerned about. We propose to give the House an opportunity to determine that issue today. The motion provides also for participation by the minority parties, however ungrateful they may be, in the Committee.

Nearly a month ago, the Government’s response to the Procedure Committee’s report was published. It stated quite explicitly that

“the Government believe that it would be appropriate for the House to address the anomaly whereby members of the Backbench Business Committee other than the Chair (unlike those of other select committees) are elected by the House as a whole rather than by Members of the political party to which they belong before the next elections of members. The Government propose to allow time for consideration of proposals to this effect towards the end of the current Session.”

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Should not a strong and confident Government accept whatever kind of scrutiny the House thinks is appropriate? Does the hon. Gentleman not get the mood of the House today? Everyone who has spoken so far today and, I think, those who have not spoken believe he should withdraw the motion and await the proper conclusions of the Committee?

[Mr Heath]

I prefer to hear the preponderance of voices in a Division, rather than take a snapshot of how the House may feel before it has had a chance to hear the debate. It is for the House to determine which way it wants to go on the proposals—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

This debate is about power and those on the Front Benches are misguided in thinking that it will enhance ministerial power to seek to influence the way in which Back-Bench business is conducted against the interests of all the Back Benchers who have turned up and spoken in today’s debate. It is wrong of those on the two Front Benches to impose a Whip on Ministers and shadow Ministers—[Interruption.] I accept, then, that there is no such Whip on shadow Ministers, but we will see. We will study the Division results with great interest to see the view that shadow Ministers take. It is wrong for Front Benchers to seek to stop Back Benchers continuing with their arrangements in a timely way.

I share a common cause with my Front Benchers as I happen to think, as they seem to, that Ministers do not have enough power. I think that there is a danger that under any Government we could have Ministers in office but not in power, but the reason is not our powerful Backbench Business Committee and the fact that it makes them come to this House to discuss things that they do not wish to discuss. If Ministers do that well, it enhances their stature. The reason is that too many decisions are taken by the European Union, overridden by the European Court of Human Rights or taken by independent quangos. We have the Environment Agency, the Bank of England and United Kingdom Financial Investments; Ministers are very limited in what they can do. I would happily make common cause with those on my Front Bench in getting Ministers more power and think that many of my colleagues would take the same view. We would be cheering them if they came to this House and said that Ministers needed more power to settle our borders, sort out the problems with prisoners, deal with taxation or money supply and so on. We want it to be accountable power, however, which is why we want Ministers to have more power but think that they should come to the House of Commons to answer for how they exercise it.

Ministers should get real. They are in danger of being in office but not in power because they will not take the accountable power they need to improve our country and to make the necessary changes. Their problem is not the Backbench Business Committee; their problem lies elsewhere. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to wake up and smell the coffee, as the phrase goes these days, and to understand that people want a strong, proud and independent Parliament and that people want their Ministers to come here to talk about the difficult issues on any day. They want Ministers to talk about the issue that they do not want to talk about today, because that is what matters and that is what is topical. A strong and confident Government can debate anything at any time about their conduct, their views and their policies and the more we make them debate it, the stronger their case should be. I want the Opposition to challenge them, I want the Backbench Business Committee to challenge them and, above all, I want the decisions that matter for our country to be made here by accountable Ministers.

Business of the House

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is huge interest today, which I am keen to accommodate, but if I am to do so I will require brevity, a master class in which will be provided by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood).

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

RBS has announced pay increases for investment bankers, big losses and no dividends for taxpayers yet again. May we have an early debate on measures to break the bank up, promote better management and get some money back for taxpayers?

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend may have an opportunity in the Budget debate to intervene along those lines with his radical suggestions for a fresh approach to RBS.

Business of the House

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this important issue to the House’s attention. We do have a strategy for trying to reduce the harm that is done by diabetes. I think it would be an appropriate subject for a debate in Westminster Hall, where we could set out our strategy in more detail, but he is right—there is a growing incidence of diabetes and there is an imperative to take action to try to minimise the harm it does.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

May we have an early debate on who speaks for England and who should make decisions for England in an increasingly devolved United Kingdom?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my right hon. Friend’s concern. We announced on Tuesday the establishment of the West Lothian commission, which will look at a range of options. For example, with issues that affect only England and Wales, one option would be that only English and Welsh MPs voted on such matters. In my view, that would be an appropriate rebalancing of the constitution to take account of the fact that in Scotland they have their own Parliament in which issues are resolved on which English MPs cannot vote. It seems somewhat perverse that Scottish MPs can vote on those very same issues when they apply only to England.

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I know that my hon. Friend is not so satisfied. He will know that a Committee of the House is looking into the legislation and that there is a committee that liaises between this House and IPSA. I think that the latter is aware of his views on the improvements that need to be made to the scheme. This motion relates not to the allowances that, I believe, are his preoccupation but to pensions.

Before we rose for the summer recess, I set out the Government’s approach to hon. Members’ pensions in a written ministerial statement, and I also published the motion we are debating. Should the House agree to support the motion, we will have protected the principle that MPs’ remuneration should be independently assessed and determined and demonstrated to our constituents that we understand that Parliament must not be insulated from the fiscal circumstances affecting the rest of the country.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The Leader of the House said that we will never vote again on these matters. Does that mean that the House will not vote the money needed to pay these salaries? What will be done about the overall budget for the costs of government and Parliament, which I thought was of interest to the Government?

[Sir George Young]

The position is exactly as I said: under legislation passed by the House we will not vote on our own pay, which IPSA will determine independently. It will have the authority to do that and, without primary legislation, which the House would have to agree, its determination will be the last word.

[Sir George Young]

Primary legislation precludes that. Were the Government to be minded to change that, they would have to persuade the House to reintroduce primary legislation overturning the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, which deals with IPSA, and the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which have taken the matter out of our control, so there is no longer a parallel with the previous position.

[Mr Redwood]

I understand the narrow point about rates of pay, but my question is rather different: are the coalition Government still interested in the overall costs of Parliament and of MPs? Will we vote through the money, or will somebody else do that?

[Sir George Young]

It would be quite wrong to say that, in principle, our pay should be determined by IPSA but to try, by the back door, to circumscribe that decision by voting down the money it had determined should be paid as our salaries. That would not be an independent determination of our salaries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

Time will tell. If IPSA proves incapable, which I doubt, I suspect we will be back here quite quickly, dealing with the consequences. I do not anticipate that we will be in that position.

[Mr Redwood]

The hon. Lady is making an important contribution. May I see if I have understood what she is saying? She is saying that the order does not suspend normal trustee law, so are the trustees under a duty to give their consent or to seek to modify the scheme that IPSA brings forward? I do not know whether this is a normal scheme or not.

[Ms Eagle]

This will be an IPSA scheme. My understanding of it, in my reading of the primary legislation which we all supported prior to the last election, is that the trustees would have the normal legal requirements and fiduciary duties in the new scheme that trustees of other schemes have. That is my understanding. I am looking at the Leader of the House, who does not seem to be shaking his head. I assume that if the Government had a different interpretation, we would have heard about it by now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

It does not say that, actually, because if it did, it would be worded in that way. That is how it is being interpreted. If nothing else comes from this debate, something will have been achieved if that is how the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority interprets the motion. My concern and the concern of many colleagues is that it seems as though the Government have picked a few items and put them in the motion.

To take one public service scheme as an example, the Government have made it quite clear that they do not think that the principles we are talking about today should apply to the armed forces scheme. I support the Government in that, but it is a completely separate issue from trying to tie the hands of IPSA at this stage. IPSA will come forward with its proposals and they will go out to consultation, at which point the Government will have a chance to express a view, as will everybody else.

[Mr Redwood]

Am I right in remembering that the idea of the Hutton proposals was that they should be negotiated between the representatives of the employees and the employers? Does my hon. Friend think that that is the idea in this case as well?

[Mr Chope]

My right hon. Friend is, as almost always, absolutely right. The hon. Member for Blaydon made the point that in the public sector, proper negotiations are going on based upon information about specific schemes and about employment issues overall. It seems that for some reason, the Government are trying to pre-empt that negotiation, although we have a strong and independent group of trustees for our pension scheme.

As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I tried to negotiate with the Government a slightly longer debate on this issue, believing that we should take it up to 7 o’clock. I lost out in that negotiation, so now I feel it is incumbent on me to reduce my remarks pro rata to give others the chance to participate. I have tabled the amendment as a probing amendment, and I have been quite interested in the reaction that it has engendered. Since I tabled it I have heard colleagues say that they think I am on to a good thing, and that they would support it if the House were to divide. However, I will wait and see the view of others before making a final decision on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

I do not have time to give way again, because I am conscious of the fact that so many Members want to intervene or make speeches. Rather than reading out the minutes of meetings, if the hon. Gentleman writes to me I will furnish him with that information.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Donohoe]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if I get to a point at which I have some leeway, but I have some important things to outline before I take any further interventions.

The trustees of the time had no choice about the move to IPSA, which was agreed by a motion of the House. However, they fought for and won significant concessions within the Bill that made the change. There is absolutely no doubt that the protection of Members’ pensions was at the forefront of their discussion, and I have to praise the staff and advisers of the pension unit and its previous chairman, Sir John Butterfill. They are to be congratulated on the protection that they got for the pensions of Members and retired Members.

The legislation necessary to transfer the Leader of the House’s powers to IPSA was in place before my appointment as chairman of the board of trustees, but as I continue I shall tell the House that the trustees will have important powers that they did not have previously. The transfer of powers was agreed, as all hon. Members will know, in the wake of the expenses scandal, following the recommendations of the Kelly report. One recommendation was that IPSA should have statutory responsibility for setting Members’ pay, which of course includes pensions, and other conditions of service. It is important to understand that that must be done in consultation with the House. IPSA also has the responsibility of oversight for the administration of Members’ pensions.

Therefore, amendments to schedule 6 to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 were made to give effect to the decision to transfer powers over pensions. That is what the Act was all about, and that is what it achieves. However, Members who read the Act will find that aspects of it clearly transfer more powers to the board of trustees.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman make that clear, because I do not quite understand him? Is he saying that the trustees have the power and the duty either to consent to IPSA proposals or to withhold their consent? If they have that power, how might they use it?

[Mr Donohoe]

The trustees do not have that power. Given IPSA’s independence, which is enshrined in legislation, at the end of the day, it makes the ultimate decision, but it must do so after meaningful consultation with the trustees. Any changes that IPSA wishes to make to the pension fund must be reported to the Speaker and laid before the House. That is the power within the Act.

The trustees at the time were presented with the proposals to amend the 2010 Act. They asked for and got a number of amendments, but they had no power to overturn the Government’s proposals, which were eventually agreed. I can tell the House that the trustees made an exceptional effort and fought extremely hard in that period, and they won numerous and significant protections for Members’ pension benefits. By way of an example, accrued benefits will be fully protected after the transfer. Because the benefits have been built up, they obviously must be protected, but they are not currently protected and they could be interfered with. That is a clear indication of what the trustees were able to implement—that protection will be enshrined in legislation following the transfer. I do not have time to give more examples, but I can give them to hon. Members after the debate if they want me to.

IPSA can make changes to MPs’ future pension benefits and contributions only after formal consultation with the trustees, the majority of whom, following the transfer of the power, which will happen whenever the Leader of the House gets round to signing the order, will be Members of Parliament or former Members of Parliament. That is an enhancement of the trustees’ powers, because there is currently no such requirement.

Currently, there are 10 trustees—eight are Members of Parliament and two are former Members, but when the order is signed, one trustee will be appointed by the board of IPSA and one will come from the Government. The Ministry for the civil service, the head of which is the Prime Minister, will appoint the latter. I do not suppose the Prime Minister wants to become the trustee of the Members’ pension fund, but who knows?

Business of the House

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

Let me rebut instantly the hon. Lady’s final suggestion. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister looks forward to every Wednesday with relish. On her question about the extra days, we have tabled a motion to extend the number of days for private Members’ Bills. We do not need to lay a comparable motion to deal with the days for the Backbench Business Committee. Since the Committee was established last July we have allocated roughly one day a week to it, and I propose to continue to do that. We do not need to table a motion in order to do so, however.

On the question of extending the sitting days to include next Wednesday, the House values the certainty of having a calendar published well in advance, and there are precedents for the pre-recess Adjournment debate taking half a day rather than a whole day. We have tried to reconcile the need for certainty with the need for the House to be updated on the difficult position on Libya and to contribute to that debate, as well as respecting the demands of the pre-recess Adjournment debate. I hope that we have struck a fair balance between those three demands. I can tell the hon. Lady that I propose to table a business motion so that the protected time of three hours for the pre-recess Adjournment debate will not suffer any injury as a result of any statements or other events on that day. I hope that when I table that motion, she will smile at it.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

May we have a debate in Government time on the future of the euro and the economic governance arrangements in the European Union? Those of us who fought long and hard, and successfully, to keep Britain out of the euro would like ministerial reassurance that we are not going to be dragged into any of the financial or governmental consequences of its current problems, and that we will get something back for Britain when those countries need our consent to change.

[Sir George Young]

I understand my right hon. Friend’s concerns, but I cannot promise an imminent debate on that subject. Following the important meeting of the European Council that begins today, however, there might well be a statement early next week, which would give him an opportunity to share his concerns with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.