Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and Mark Durkan

Thursday 15th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

On food, the hon. Gentleman will know that many in the food sector are very keen to trade significantly but really do worry about the implications of the treaty and the terms under which it is done. They feel that it will potentially undermine them rather than giving them a floor of confidence on which they can trade.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I very much agree and the same is true of chemical regulation. In Europe, our approach, while being very far from perfect, puts an emphasis on the precautionary principle. Again, we are told that our approach will not be affected, but there is plenty of evidence—including today—that that is not true. For example, the EU proposed in 2013 that endocrine-disrupting chemicals—chemicals that mess with the sexual development of children—should be banned, at least until they are proven to be safe. For the record, there is no scientific doubt at all about the effect of endocrine disruptors; none at all. But on the back of savage lobbying by the chemical industry, the US Government weighed in and pressed the EU to consider the impact of their proposals on fledgling trade negotiations. Bingo; a few months later, the proposals were suspended. The lobby groups had won. Our Government, to their shame, were involved in that process; the first European Government to step forward on the side of the lobby groups and say, “Yes, let’s back off and not jeopardise our trade deals.”

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and Mark Durkan

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it can be legal up to a point; there could be some matters on which a clear-cut judgment could be made. I have chosen to offer the route through the court simply because it seemed to me that there was a will or a mood in Committee saying, “Well, if we’re going to allow any element of public petition to recall, then going to an election court could be the way that could be done.” I have simply taken that point and offered this new clause to try to test Members on whether they will follow through on the logic of the argument they made in Committee.

I do not commend the model in new clause 5 above all others. I still prefer the open rolling petition around a clear issue, but, again, I think that the open rolling petition should be on the basis of a pledge. I think the pledge as the basis for those petitions would create a much clearer standard for the public. It would also create a clearer standard for MPs, who would know, if they had committed to the pledge, whether they had abided by the code of conduct and could show whether they had upheld the standards of public life. That should not be too much to ask. MPs should not feel, “Oh, it’s hard to prove that we have upheld the standards of public life or lived up to the code of conduct.” It would send a very dangerous signal if Members felt that a pledge about the MPs code of conduct and the standards of public life would be difficult to uphold or could be abused in some untoward way. Then we would be seen to be trying to find ourselves some highly privileged protection where we decide that we always know best, even about the worst that we have done.

That is the simple point of new clause 5, which I do not intend to press to a Division. Its purpose is to ensure that if we are to improve the Bill, we take into account the absence from the Bill of a clear tool available to the public. Also, we need to make good the serious omission that we have all acknowledged—in circumstances where there is no serious job description for MPs, where is the bottom line? The new clause offers a bottom line.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

It is worth taking stock of where we are. The Government’s Bill still has no friends in its current form. It still proposes a system of recall that is possible only in the narrowest of circumstances and, in most cases, still only by permission of MPs. It will do nothing to empower voters. For that reason it has been savagely criticised by every pressure group campaigning for improved democracy—everyone from 38 Degrees and Unlock Democracy all the way to the TaxPayers Alliance. It has been trashed by everyone from the Morning Star to The Daily Telegraph, which described it a few weeks ago as an “insult to voters”.

As a consequence, the Prime Minister felt obliged to describe the Bill as “the minimum acceptable”. Labour’s shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), said that

“the Bill needs to be strengthened considerably from its current state in order for it to have meaning.”

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and Mark Durkan

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I wish to speak very briefly in favour of the new clause. There is a long history in this House of Members challenging the ever-increasing power of the Executive. We heard recently from the Leader of the House, who is not in his place:

“The terms of the trade between Government and Parliament have shifted too far in the executive’s favour. That is not good for Parliament; but neither does it lead to better government.”

The Prime Minister also highlighted those concerns in February, saying:

“We’d want to reduce the power of the executive and increase the power of Parliament even if politics hadn’t fallen into disrepute.”

We also heard from the Deputy Prime Minister before the election, which he described as

“an opportunity to turn the page on decades of relentless centralisation within government.”

He argued for a dispersal of power away from the centre and a cut in the number of Ministers and Government Whips, saying:

“The rules of the game at Westminster are stacked in favour of the ruling party; parliament is rendered largely impotent to hold ministers to account.”

We have heard over the past few days and weeks very strong arguments for equalising the size of constituencies and reducing the number of MPs, but to do that without also reducing the number of Ministers would profoundly undermine the authority of Parliament. The proposal is not radical, or even a solution to the problem that so many hon. Members have identified. It would neither minimise the power of the Executive nor increase that of the legislature. It merely calls for a reduction in the size of Government in line with the planned cuts to the number of Members of Parliament. In effect, it will do no more than prevent trends from getting worse.

If the Government are truly committed to decentralisation, they can demonstrate that today by backing the new clause. I strongly urge them to do that.

[Mark Durkan]

I support the new clause, to which my name, along with those of so many others from different parties, is attached in the unpublished list.

When considering the new clause, the Committee should bear in mind not only the experiences of the parties that form the Government and occupy the Government Benches, but those of the rest of us who come to the Chamber and the Committees of the House and are confronted with the realities of the Government Whip system and Parliamentary Private Secretaries—part of the peculiar ecosystem here—who can represent their constituents but are at times bound not to represent their consciences. The idea that someone can represent their constituents but never their conscience is a peculiar political creation, from which the House should try to get away. It brings politics into some disrepute if we appear effectively to neuter ourselves. The straits into which PPSs are cast are unnecessary; they should be allowed more freedom than they generally exercise or are encouraged or permitted to exercise.

New clause 7 led me to that issue by way of making a general observation about the dominance of the Executive in the House. In recent years there have been attempts to reduce the Executive’s absolute control of the agenda and the timetable, and changes have been made from appointing Chairs of Select Committees to electing them. That is all to the good, but new clause 7 is the reality check. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, it is the genuine test of whether the new politics means anything.

I have no argument with reducing the number of Members of Parliament. I did not vote for 650 the other night; I am happy if there is a reduction. However, alongside that, we need a reduction in the size and voting dominance of the Executive in the Chamber.

Of course the answer to the problem of the over-supply of Ministers in this House is not to over-supply them in another place. In the previous Parliament not only many Ministers, but Cabinet Ministers—Secretaries of State—sat in another place. I joined others in criticising that lack of accountability. For me, the answer was not to bring Ministers from the Lords into this House—the last thing I wanted was to bring Peter Mandelson back anywhere, not least to the Dispatch Box, given our experiences of the man. On that famous occasion in Hartlepool, he said that he was not a quitter but a fighter. I always believed that his theme tune should have been the Simon and Garfunkel song “The Boxer”—not for the lyrics of the verses but for the chorus, which is simply “Lie la lie” throughout.