Advisory Committee on Business Appointments/Ministerial Code Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Cabinet Office

Advisory Committee on Business Appointments/Ministerial Code

Alan Brown Excerpts
Monday 20th March 2017

(7 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Gummer Portrait Ben Gummer
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton will continue to contribute to this House. He has shown every indication of wishing to do so in the past few weeks, and I have no doubt that he will continue to do so over the months ahead. It is right that we all contribute in our own way, and in the way that best discharges our talents. I hope that would be the case for all Members of Parliament, not just the one in question.

Alan Brown Portrait Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
- Hansard - -

The hon. Friends of the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) have all jumped to his defence and argued that outside interests help a Member to stay in Parliament and bring experience to it. If the outside interests are so extensive, a Member quite clearly will not be contributing to the House, so that argument is ridiculous. The Minister says that Members stand for re-election by their constituents, but unfortunately under the UK political system there are safe seats in which voters do not have a choice, so will the Government look at this issue in the round?

Ben Gummer Portrait Ben Gummer
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The former leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party writes a column for a newspaper—[Interruption.] I am not saying whether that is right or wrong, but the reaction of Scottish National party Members suggests that they might feel a little guilty about putting that question.

The point is that this is not an easy or binary decision to come to. When is too much? Is it one newspaper column? Is it two or five? The House should come to a decision after long and careful thought. It would be good if Opposition Members expressed themselves in those terms, rather than expressing outrage, because Members on their side have outside interests.