Business of the House

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I congratulate SpecialEffect—what a fantastic achievement. I also congratulate my hon. Friend, who I know has been a long-term supporter of this great charity. He is right to point out that small local charities make a huge contribution to communities across the country, and the Government are committed to supporting their independence and sustainability. I wish SpecialEffect the very best success in the future.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is almost 100 years since the first Co-op party MP, Alf Waterson, was elected to this House. Notwithstanding the very strong support that Labour colleagues and others in the House show for much of the Co-op party’s political agenda, as we are the third largest political grouping in the House, is it not time that we were allocated an extra dedicated Opposition day debate?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will look into that.

Business of the House

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 14th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

There are a number of ways in which the hon. Lady can bring an important issue to the Chamber. I have just described one way; another is the Adjournment debate system. If she feels strongly, I encourage her to request such a debate and you, Mr Speaker, or the Backbench Business Committee might select the topic for debate.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The one exam board that offers GCSE and A-level exams in Gujarati and other so-called minority languages has confirmed its intention to stop doing so in the summer of 2018, despite Ministers’ promises last year that those exams would continue. May we have a debate on what action we as the House of Commons can take to stop the language of Mahatma Gandhi, of Prime Minister Modi and, crucially, of many of my constituents being downgraded?

[Chris Grayling]

I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman raises. The Secretary of State for Education will be here on Monday week and he will have the opportunity to raise that issue then. We want to make sure that we have a good range of international languages—given the ties that we are building, have built and will continue to build with India, that is important—but we also want to make sure that the quality of education across the piece is right for those in migrant communities as they meet the employment challenges of adult life in this country.

Business of the House

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Business Ministers will be here on Tuesday week. I do not know where the funding came from—whether it was national or local—because I do not know enough details of the individual case. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that unemployment in the north of this country, and business in the north of this country, are moving in the right direction, not the wrong one.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Services at popular walk-in clinics in Harrow are being put out to tender under the direction of the NHS procurement authority, including services at the Alexandra Avenue clinic, which is used by many of my constituents. May we have a debate in Government time so that we can discuss the role of the procurement authority, and, in particular, explore the question of why local GPs who are currently running walk-in clinics continue to be granted a stake in the long-running provision of such crucial services?

[Chris Grayling]

Local GPs are able to have a stake in the future of those services. Local GPs are, typically, private organisations providing services for the NHS, and if those services are put out to tender, GPs are perfectly able to demonstrate that they are best placed to do the work.

Christmas Adjournment

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Transport for London is London’s biggest and arguably least accountable quango. Bossed by the Mayor, in practice it is answerable to no one in London apart from him. Londoners have virtually no say in what it does. Fares go up with Londoners having no chance to stop them, never mind reduce them, while vanity projects such as a plan for an estuary airport, on which a royal ransom has been spent, and a cable car that carries few passengers, are funded and no one can stop them. That needs to change.

Londoners need to be given more control over TfL, in the same way that patients were given the right to become members of their local hospital so that they have to be listened to and consulted on the trust’s strategy and non-executive director appointments. Surely it is time that Londoners were allowed some power to shape what TfL does, affect the decisions it makes and have a voice when its spending and fares plans are put together.

London’s fares have gone up by some 60% in the past six years, with outer-London residents, including those in my constituency, being hit very hard. TfL’s most senior staff member recently said that he fears riots if the cost of London travel keeps rising. There has been little discussion with Londoners about the decision to shut virtually every ticket office despite the current Mayor’s pledge to keep them open, and there has been even less public debate about how TfL’s property might be used to address London’s housing crisis.

There is the fiction of mayoral and London assembly accountability: every four years, if people do not like what the Mayor has done with public transport in London, they can vote for change, and there are regular London assembly transport question times, when the likes of Val Shawcross, Navin Shah and other assembly members do a great job within huge constraints, but there is no real input from ordinary Londoners. The first that anyone on the 8 am train from Harrow on the Hill or East Croydon hears of the next year’s fare increases is when they read about them in the Evening Standard, and only once the Mayor’s spin doctors have carefully packaged the announcement so that the worst rises are not discovered for a couple of days.

If Londoners are to be given the chance to have a say on the big decisions that are needed on the future of London’s transport, they must surely be part of TfL’s decision making. They should be able to challenge the Mayor’s proposals on significant issues such as above-inflation fare rises, big projects or significant shifts such as privatising services or the use of TfL land.

How could Londoners be given a greater say? The simplest way would be to create a right for all those paying council tax in London to join TfL if they want to do so. Membership of TfL would entitle London’s residents to attend annual meetings and to listen to, question and approve TfL bosses’ plans. Such a system already exists in foundation hospitals, and to a lesser extent in Welsh Water. The Mayor would still have the right of initiative, but crucially he would have to face a far more vigorous system of public scrutiny and approval. I gently suggest to the House that TfL needs to be reformed and that a more engaged and democratic TfL needs to emerge.

Secondly, I wish to mention the huge cuts in funding that my local authority faces—some £25 million this year. That will put facilities such as Harrow arts centre and Harrow museum at risk, although they appear to have been saved at least for this year. Other cuts that the council envisages include those to North Harrow library and Rayners Lane library, both of which are popular facilities. North Harrow library in particular is a crucial community facility in an area that has lost a number of other services and commercial firms of late. Harrow faces some £50 million of further cuts in future years, so there will be difficult choices. I nevertheless hope that there might be a way to save North Harrow library in particular.

Thirdly, I want to raise the example of Desjardins, the biggest financial services player in Quebec, in Canada. It is basically a credit union, but an unusual one. It is essentially a federation of 480 individual credit unions, which co-operate to present a unified back-office service and a unified front-facing offer. The individual credit unions share back-office services, cross-guarantee each other’s financial decisions and share the same brand name, making marketing of their services far easier.

Desjardins is owned by its members and backed by the Church in Quebec, and its branches have become almost as prolific in Quebec as churches. It offers the full range of individual and business financial services, helping individuals to manage their future and helping small businesses to grow into larger ones. It makes a profit, which is shared by members across the credit unions.

In the UK, the challenge remains how to take credit unions to scale. Part of the Desjardins model is being considered in the UK under the credit union modernisation project that the Department for Work and Pensions has funded. What has not yet been created is a similar front-facing offer—a common brand with an extensive common marketing offer and agreement on common products. Co-operatives are often fiercely independent, but I wonder whether it is time for an attempt to be made to bring credit unions together, at least on a regional basis, to fund for a number of years the common front-facing offer that is needed. Clearly, flexibility would be needed so that individual credit unions did not lose their identity or power. Why could not the Mayor of London, perhaps working with the Church of England, consider such an operation to help London’s credit unions grow in membership and number?

The last point that I want to raise is about London Welsh rugby club. I have recently written to Alex Chisholm, the chief executive of the Competition and Markets Authority, about the fact that London Welsh, newly promoted to the premiership this year, get just £1.5 million in subsidy whereas other premiership rugby clubs get more than £4 million. Inevitably, the premiership is a rigged market as a result, always making it harder for newly promoted clubs to compete with more established clubs on an equal basis.

Talks are in progress between London Welsh and Premiership Rugby, but I hope that Mr Chisholm from the CMA might be willing to use his good offices, following the letter that I have written to him, to which I hope the shadow Deputy Leader of the House might encourage a quick response, to encourage Premiership Rugby to see sense and sort out the huge imbalance in funding.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Absolutely. This is an extremely important continuation of the developing, immense and proud sporting history that we have in this country. We are now established again as one of the great sporting nations of the world, and we are also a country that thinks deeply about the welfare of service veterans. His Royal Highness Prince Harry has been one of the great champions of that, and we wish him, and everyone involved in the games, very well.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q6. In 2012, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to see economic growth that would mean rising living standards for all. Can the Leader of the House tell us, then, why Britain has seen one of the largest falls in real wages among the European Union countries, beaten only by Cyprus, Portugal and Greece?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman may remember that there was a debt-fuelled, deep recession, which came about under the last Government. That, of course, has to be paid for, but now, after four years of the disciplined policies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we have the fastest growth among the G7 economies, we have employment nearing a record high, and we have nearly 2 million new apprenticeships which have been started during this time. That is a remarkable economic turnaround from the catastrophic situation that we were left.

Summer Adjournment

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I know very well all the places in his constituency he mentioned, and I am looking forward to spending more time at those locations campaigning for Uma Kumaran, his replacement next year. He raised one particularly interesting scenario for me: the fitness challenge of climbing the steps of Stanmore station. In between campaigning for Uma Kumaran, I am training for the London triathlon on Sunday 3 August and I might just come to Stanmore station and take that challenge. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to join me when I do.

I wish to come back to something the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) began his remarks with: the disappointment with the performance of the England football team at the World cup. He suggested, I think in jest, that we should boycott premier league matches because there are too many overseas players. I think that the competition foreign players bring to the premier league is a good thing, but a more comprehensive look at how the interests of fans who want England to do well and who support premier league clubs needs to be thought about, particularly so that those interests can be properly represented in the governance of premier league clubs. Surely it is not an unreasonable ask to have a fan on the board of each club, elected through its football supporters trust—that might be a good thing, in order to ensure that the interests of ordinary football fans are properly represented.

Swansea City stands out as a lone example, as it has genuine fans, elected through the supporters trust, sitting on the board and taking part in all the decisions it makes in the interests of the club. The premier league needs to think through with a little more gusto how Swansea’s example might be replicated. Similarly, an audit of each premier league club’s contribution to grass-roots sport is surely also overdue. Each club should be expected to contribute at least 5% immediately, rising to perhaps some 10%, of TV income to the coaching of the next generation of England’s football fans and players. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask clubs to invest such sums in grass-roots sport in the areas around them.

Let me move on to my second issue. There is a need to review the funding formula for Harrow council and for the NHS in Harrow. The council faces some £75 million in funding cuts over the next four years—£25 million in this year alone. Other nearby councils receive substantially higher per capita funding, so I strongly support the campaign for Harrow council to receive fair funding. I hope that the Minister who is sitting on the Bench today might solicit a letter to me from the Department for Communities and Local Government about Harrow council’s case.

Had NHS England decided to implement the new funding formula it devised, the NHS in Harrow would have received an extra £23 million this year, and indeed next. I say gently that perhaps if the Government had not wasted £3 billion on a completely unnecessary reorganisation of the NHS, NHS England might have been able to find more quickly the funding that will be needed to ease the pressure at Northwick Park hospital, which serves my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Harrow East. The board of The North West London Hospitals NHS Trust has identified an extra 120 beds as necessary just to cope with the existing demand—that is before the closure of Ealing’s accident and emergency department and that of Central Middlesex hospital. That money might also have helped to stop the closure of the Alexandra Avenue urgent hours centre, or polyclinic. It used to be open from 8 am to 8 pm, 365 days a year, providing a hugely valuable service to many of my constituents in the south-west of the borough of Harrow. Sadly, the centre is now open only from 9 am to 4 pm on Saturdays and Sundays, and that situation urgently needs reviewing.

The last issue I wish to touch on is reform of the UK’s pension fund market. It is an almost £3 trillion market, and automatic enrolment is bringing a further 10 million working people into the private pension system. In theory, through our pension and savings funds, we each own a stake in various companies, and have a say in how those companies are run. In practice, that is nonsense. Instead such power is concentrated in the hands of a small number of financial institutions, the pension and savings fund managers or their appointees. They are the ones who, in practice, exercise the power of shareholders. Those institutions, I gently suggest to the Minister, should surely be accountable to our constituents who invest their savings and pension funds. To all intents and purposes, that accountability is largely a myth at the moment. A more accountable investment system is arguably overdue. Savers should surely have guaranteed rights to scrutinise decisions that are made on their behalf by the people who manage their money—the institutional investors.

At the moment, savers have very limited rights to information about what their money is being invested in. Should our constituents not be able to find out how those institutional investors are using shareholder rights that are being exercised in their name? Our constituents should also have access to information about the strategy of the pension or savings fund into which they have put their money, and the risks that are attached to that strategy. Surely they should be able to see an annual report on how the fund has implemented its investment policy over the year and how it plans to mitigate any risks in future.

Our constituents should also be able to question the people who look after their money. Is an annual meeting that much of an unreasonable ask? After all, it is only what companies with normal shareholders have to do. I understand that Legal and General is about to do exactly that, but most of its rivals in the savings market do not have any plans to ape it.

Should our constituents not have the right to be consulted on the investment and voting policies of the institutional investors into whose trust they place their savings and pensions? Should our constituents not also have the right to elect representatives on to the board or governing committee of the pension fund in which they are investing? These are sensible rules that would make the pension and savings fund market a little more accountable. They have been developed by the excellent organisation ShareAction, and I commend them to the House.

Easter Adjournment

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow my parliamentary neighbour, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall). I have always thought that he wears the trauma of living next door to the greatest constituency in the UK—that of Harrow West—extremely lightly, given that he will never have the chance to represent it.

I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s praise for the Wildlife Trusts, and in so doing I would like to take this opportunity, as president of the London Green Belt Council, to praise the contribution of so many residents’ associations across London that defend the green belt and green open spaces in London with great passion and commitment. I am thinking in particular of those in the London borough of Harrow, such as the Harrow Hill trust, the Pinner association, the Headstone residents’ association and the Hatch End association. I pay tribute to their work.

The right hon. Gentleman and I also share an interest in what happens at RAF Northolt. I gently ask the Deputy Leader of the House to ensure that, in future, whenever the Ministry of Defence consults on any plans to change the number of flights in and out of RAF Northolt, it will consult Harrow and Ealing councils as well as Hillingdon council and Hillingdon Members of Parliament. There is substantial concern in my constituency about the significant uplift in the number of flights the MOD is going to allow into RAF Northolt and about the lack of discussion with Harrow MPs and the local council.

I also want to ask the Deputy Leader of the House for his assistance on the issue of policing. The latest figures from the Mayor of London’s office show that, in January, Harrow had 344 police officers and just 38 police community support officers—a total of 382 officers. In March 2010, however, Harrow had a total of 519 police officers, made up of 403 police constables, sergeants and others, and 116 PCSOs. Harrow has therefore seen a 27% fall in the number of police officers since the general election—part of the 3,000 or so police officers axed from the London streets since 2010.

I understand that London has 30,036 police officers, despite the Mayor of London’s promise that he would maintain police numbers at or about 32,000. Indeed, the Deputy Mayor for policing, Stephen Greenhalgh, said last year that it would be a “doomsday scenario” for policing in London if the number dropped below 31,000, but that is what has happened. Over the same period since the general election, the Metropolitan police has lost almost 2,300 PCSOs, which is a 50% cut since 2010. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House is willing to try to secure from the Home Office a timeline for when Harrow will again have the same complement of police officers, including PCSOs, as we had back in March 2010. In particular, my constituents are concerned that there are not enough police officers in our part of Harrow. Despite the Mayor’s promises, there does not yet appear to be any sense of when we will get back to the numbers we once had.

The last issue I want to raise relates to one of the responsibilities of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I take this opportunity to congratulate the new Secretary of State, who also has responsibility for equality, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), on his appointment. I hope that he will take a particular interest in the implementation of section 27 of the Communications Act 2003, and the extent to which Ofcom is meeting its responsibilities for promoting equality of opportunity among those employed by providers of television and radio services.

One of Ofcom’s predecessors, the Independent Television Commission, required those it licensed to carry out equality monitoring. The ITC published data in tables every year, along with a critique and any other action that companies were taking on equality. However, Ofcom no longer publishes any such data. Although it has a duty to encourage equality of opportunity in the arts, it is not using the key available tool—public scrutiny—to encourage improvement. Indeed, Ofcom has resisted—sadly, successfully—freedom of information requests to release the data.

The House should be concerned, because surely our TV programmes and the organisations funded by Arts Council England should, in relation to those they employ on screen and on stage, reflect the very diverse nature of the communities that many hon. Members represent. I have received a number of representations from communities and from actors from particular ethnic minority backgrounds, who do not feel that they receive appropriate coverage or access to key media, particularly TV and theatre. For example, I rarely see Tamil actors and actresses on our TV screens, which is disappointing given the size of the Tamil community, particularly in my constituency. British east Asians are the third largest minority ethnic group in Britain today, but that is simply not reflected on our screens and stages.

To provide more evidence of that point, in nearly 30 years, “EastEnders” has had only one regular east Asian character, a young female DVD seller who lasted just six months. Given that the east end of London remains one of our most ethnically diverse areas, it is a little odd that Albert square has not had so much as even the proverbial cliché of a Chinese takeaway. “Coronation Street” also has a disappointing record. It waited until 2011 before it had an east Asian character, who lasted just four months. Hospital dramas such as “Casualty”, “Doctors” and “Holby City” are similarly disappointing. Given the number of east Asians working in our hospitals, including in senior roles, that is somewhat at odds with the reality of the very diverse work force in the NHS. Actors have told me that they worry that any east Asian actor who is unable or unwilling to embody a stereotype will simply be unable to build any kind of career, given the lack of opportunity to play appropriate and non-stereotypical roles.

Figures suggest that the number of black and ethnic minority staff in companies receiving Arts Council England funding is dropping. I therefore hope that the new Secretary of State might, in addition to all his other duties, encourage Ofcom and Arts Council England to take a greater interest in equality monitoring. I want what I watch on TV, in films and on stage to reflect the community I live in, and surely that is not an unreasonable ask. Sadly, it is now far from clear whether Ofcom is fulfilling its responsibilities under the Communications Act. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House is willing to take my plea for a little more action from Ofcom to the new Secretary of State, and to deliver a suitable response in the usual way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

We have learnt two more stunning twitcher facts this afternoon. They will go down on the record, and in years to come people will read my right hon. Friend’s contribution and benefit from his expertise in bird watching.

My right hon. Friend also explained that Malta was not on his holiday list until it addressed the issue of turtledoves and the wall of lead that birds fly into as they approach that island. He then went on to the subject of the Wildlife Trusts and the campaign it is running to save grasslands as part of our natural environment—something that I am sure we would all support. He referred to the Allerton project which is a farm that operates on a commercial basis, but takes its conservation responsibilities very seriously. That best practice should perhaps be more widely promoted, and I am pleased that DEFRA is aware of it.

My right hon. Friend then talked about the modern slavery Bill, and I am sure that the Home Office will look seriously at the recommendations from the Joint Committee. I agree that modern-day slavery is an abomination. Members of Parliament all read their local papers avidly, and we can all spot the cases of modern slavery they contain, such as the brothels that have been closed down or the cannabis farms that can be found in all sorts of places, including neat, tidy and relatively affluent suburbs such as Sutton, Carshalton and Wallington. Cannabis farms are regularly found in houses, empty warehouses and empty blocks of flats. My right hon. Friend referred to early-day motion 1257. He does not normally support early-day motions, but this one was to celebrate the 175th anniversary of Anti- Slavery International, and we join him in congratulating that organisation on its anniversary.

My right hon. Friend also mentioned his central library and the investment that has gone into it. He said that he was not being partisan in saying that the London borough of Hillingdon was brilliant in terms of its library provision, and I am not being partisan when I say the same about the London borough of Sutton, where we have also succeeded in investing in libraries, especially those that work jointly with sports centres and so on to maximise footfall and other benefits.

My right hon. Friend plugged Northern Ireland as a holiday destination, and I agree with him that it is a place that everyone should visit. Great steps forward have been taken since the Good Friday agreement, but some significant issues still need to be addressed. We are all very pleased that he got a bat detector for Christmas. I hope he makes good use of it.

The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) also mentioned the Wildlife Trusts and praised its work. He touched on residents’ associations. We all have effective residents’ associations working hard in our constituencies. In my case, they are fighting against a proposal for a very large McDonald’s on Stafford road. He referred to RAF Northolt, wanting to ensure that any consultation, for example on plans to increase the number of flights, goes beyond just Hillingdon council. I will pass on his concerns to the Ministry of Defence to ensure that perhaps a wider consultation is embarked upon.

The hon. Gentleman referred to underrepresentation of black and minority ethnic people in the media. The Government are committed to black and minority ethnic diversity in TV, film and the arts, both on and off screen. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) recently met leading figures from these sectors to consider options to improve representation. I think we all support the idea that people who appear on our screens or on our airwaves should be fully representative of the population as a whole, and be in roles that do not stereotype.

[Mr Thomas]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House ask the Department for Culture, Media and Sport whether Ofcom might be tasked with more specific monitoring of what is really going on? That is the nub of the point I was trying to get across.

[Tom Brake]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman raised a point about monitoring data no longer being published. I cannot provide any further information, but I will, as he requests, ask the Minister to respond.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a decline in police numbers in Harrow. The independent crime survey has identified that since 2010 the level of crime has gone down by 10%. That is something we can all welcome. I note the drop in the number of officers in his borough as a result of changes that have happened in London. I have seen a similar decline in the number of officers in Sutton. My concern is that people need the reassurance of police visibility. As a result of these changes, there is concern that the deterrent effect is not what it used to be. His concerns are on the record. The Mayor of London may wish, if he is following this debate, to respond directly to him on that point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) had the novel proposal, which I think we all wish we had thought of ourselves, of redirecting the Tour de France through every single road in his constituency, or at least the ones that are the responsibility of Essex county council, to ensure that all the potholes are filled in. I commend him for his initiative. He clearly has strong views on his county council and has used this debate to put them on the record. On the subject of potholes, he will be pleased to hear that in this financial year the Department for Transport is providing more than £1 billion to local authorities for local highways maintenance, which includes tackling potholes. There was, of course, £200 million announced by the Chancellor in the Budget for pothole repairs. I hope he welcomes the activity on this front. He also referred to an exchange on quarterly meetings of Essex MPs. I would hope that any local authority seeking to work with its Members of Parliament would not choose to do so in a way that gives favour to one party over another. I hope it takes note of this debate.

The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) referred to the Co-op Group, which, as she knows, is going through a difficult time. The resignation of Lord Myners from the board after some directors criticised his review of the group’s structure has created further instability, and the group is now facing losses of up to £2 billion. There is clearly a need for action, and she did a very good job of specifying the action that she considered appropriate. I am sure that the members of the Co-op Group will read carefully what she had to say. They clearly need to put their house in order—something that only they can do—and I agree with her that a period of calm reflection, building trust and confidence is required. I also agree with her that if we were to lose the Co-op, we would lose some of the richness and variety from which we currently benefit.

The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said that he felt that there was unintended bias on the part of the BBC. I suspect that, whatever coverage it had or had not given to Nelson Mandela, there would have been an issue: the coverage would have been too little for some, or too much for others. I am not sure that the BBC could ever have got everyone on board. What the hon. Gentleman certainly did, however, was reinforce the point that his constituency is key and should not be neglected at the expense of any other constituency in the country, especially given that it was so badly affected by a tidal surge. He drew attention—perhaps with some justification—to the difference between the coverage of the floods that hit the south and the coverage of those that hit the north.

The hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) concentrated on the extractive industries transparency initiative, which the Government fully support. He praised the work that the Department for International Development is doing. I agree with him that the fact that the United Kingdom is the only large industrialised nation that is contributing 0.7% of its GDP to overseas aid gives us significant clout in discussions on these matters, and that much of our investment in developing countries benefits the UK as well. That cannot be stressed too often. The Government certainly would not want any actions involving the extractive industries to reduce investment in developing countries, because that investment, and growth in those countries, can make a far bigger contribution to their development than even the significant level of financial aid that comes from countries such as the UK. If the transparency initiative comes to fruition in three years’ time—as the hon. Gentleman and I hope it will—we shall be able to learn a great deal from it about best practice which could be applied to other industries.

I think we would all agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) that Parliament should be made more relevant to people’s needs. I do not necessarily agree with some of the solutions he suggested, but I would certainly welcome a debate on the subject. One of the issues that we must address is the under-representation of different communities and women in the House. If we want Parliament to be more relevant to people’s needs, we must ensure that there is a better representation of people from different backgrounds and genders. He may be right in saying that open primaries could be a way of achieving that, but there are a number of other things that we can do. Many of the actions taken by the Government since 2010, such as the introduction of the Backbench Business Committee —as well as the actions taken by Select Committee Chairs to raise the profile of Select Committees and election to them—have led people to believe that Parliament represents their views slightly more effectively than it used to, and some of the polls have confirmed that. Clearly, more can be done. For instance, there is a move to ensure that we enhance the handling of petitions within the online petition system, which I think members of the public will appreciate, too. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contributions to ways in which we can ensure that Parliament reflects people’s needs or is more relevant to them. I am not going to comment on whether there are too many Ministers in the Government, although I point out that in my case I am a Minister but at least I am not paid, so there is no impact on the payroll.

The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) raised the issue of rail freight, which he campaigns on vigorously. He set out a scheme that is being put forward by the GB freight group at a minimal cost, he said, of £6 billion, which would enable freight to go from Glasgow to the channel tunnel and beyond to Beijing, which would be quite a journey. We would need to take lots of sandwiches and many flasks of tea to get from Glasgow to Beijing on that freight train, but that would certainly open up new markets to freight. I will pass on his interest in that scheme to the Department for Transport. He said Ministers in past Governments and, indeed, the current Government were supportive but he felt the blockage may be elsewhere.

The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) raised the issue of housing. It was also mentioned by a number of other Members. I would like to put on record some of the progress we have made. Almost 420,000 homes have been built since April 2010. The new housing construction output is now at its highest level since the crash in 2008 and housing starts are at the highest level since 2007 as well. We are therefore making progress. We believe that by the end of this Government we will have more affordable homes than there were at the start of the Government, something previous Governments have not achieved. We expect to deliver 165,000 new homes in three years. That will be the fastest rate of delivery in the past 20 years. I agree with him that increasing house building can address many issues beyond those of homelessness, overcrowding and employment. He also raised the issue of the impact of immigration on the housing shortage. Clearly, the UK has seen substantial inward migration. That is something the Government are now starting to tackle, and clearly immigration does have an impact on housing.

I had an interesting meeting a couple of weeks ago with an organisation called Pocket which is trying to develop, on a relatively small scale, on areas of land in London that are perhaps difficult for larger developers to use, and which would provide housing for those caught in the middle—people who will never be able to access affordable housing because of their income, but who in London at least are very unlikely to be able to afford to buy housing because of the level of house prices. That sort of initiative can make a contribution.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out that cycling is not easy in rural areas. I agree: the distances might be greater and it may be hillier and windier. Those who advocate cycling, including me, do not all argue that everyone has to cycle wherever they live and whatever distances are involved. He rightly highlighted the issue of fuel costs and the impact they can have, particularly on people in rural areas. I know colleagues from all parties—particularly those from rural areas and places like Scotland—are very concerned about that. He welcomed the measures the Government are taking to address fuel costs and I know he would like us to go further, but the Government are aware of the issue and we are doing as much as we can.

The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) referred to having the country’s first state-sponsored Hindu primary school in his constituency, and said that it is now going to have the first state-sponsored Hindu secondary school. I wish the schools well. He also mentioned Anmer Lodge, and expressed concerns about the scale of that development. His contribution highlighted the difficulties that any area faces when trying to address the housing issue. As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, we need to increase provision but local residents need to feel that that is being done in a way that does not present a challenge to them.

The hon. Member for Harrow East is clearly not going to be buying a season ticket for Barnet football club. Indeed, he probably would not be given one if he asked. Many Members will have football clubs in residential areas of their constituencies, and they can have a significant impact. I do not know whether that is the case in his constituency, but the problems can be exacerbated in that kind of environment. I am sure that his concerns will be listened to in the appropriate places.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital, saying that he wanted the development of that centre of excellence to happen as soon as possible. He will have noticed that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) is in her place and that she heard his speech. That subject is on her agenda, and she is aware of his concerns. He also mentioned the difficulty of getting in and out of Stanmore station because there was no lift, and I understand his reasons for wanting action to be taken on that as soon as possible.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) talked about a variety of issues. He mentioned the “Shaping a healthier future” programme. He and other Members will have received proposals with names that, on the face of it, sound positive but which might not be to everyone’s satisfaction, given the impact they could have on the local health service. The Department of Health, NHS England and the trusts need to take into account the medical benefits of specialisation—as happened in London, for example, in relation to stroke services—as well as the possible disbenefit that can derive from a lack of access to local services. The right balance needs to be struck.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to his campaign to oppose a third runway at Heathrow. As the Liberal Democrats’ party spokesman on aviation back in 1997, I confirmed at the time that our policy was to oppose a third runway, and we have not deviated from that position since then. On housing, he referred to the refusal to respond to freedom of information requests relating to a wide range of issues. It is incumbent on all local authorities, and the Government, to be as open and helpful as possible in relation to FOI requests.

The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) has apologised for leaving the debate early. I understand that he had to catch a train. He referred to the need to take action in relation to the missing link between the M4 and the M5. He also rightly concentrated on the importance of regenerating the city of Gloucester and the Greater Blackfriars area. From his description, the area certainly sounds ripe for investment and will provide an opportunity to deliver a vision for the city.

Members will be pleased to hear that I have nearly finished. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) referred to the need for a maritime patrol aircraft. He explained some of the technical advantages of being able to see not only what was on the surface but also what was below it. That is an invaluable asset when dealing with submarines. He also said that we needed to work in partnership with our allies. That is something that I welcome, although there could be times when it is difficult to achieve. He will know that defence procurement is an area in which the Government have had to take action to address significant overruns. However, he could not have put his request for the maritime patrol aircraft more clearly, and I will ensure that those in the Ministry of Defence see his speech and respond to him on that point.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am on to my last note, which says “Thank you” at the top, so thank you for chairing this debate so ably. I thank also all Members who have taken part in what has been a fairly comprehensive tour, from butterflies on the A4 to the Maldives. I conclude by thanking my officials who have worked in supporting me today, and the House authorities for keeping us safe. I hope everyone has an absolutely fantastic Easter.

Business of the House

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is the very person, in the sense of having recently had a debate on bingo duty. I congratulate my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the House of Lords is completing consideration of the Water Bill, and the future of abstraction reform may well arise on consideration of Lords amendments on that Bill.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Leader of the House look into the case of my constituent Gordon Mansbridge, who is 90 and has terminal cancer. He flew some 33 Wellington bomber missions from an Italian airbase during the second world war. Sir John Holmes is investigating the possibility of recognition in the form of a medal clasp, but that review is not likely to be completed until the end of the year. Given the circumstances of my constituent, might the right hon. Gentleman explore with the Ministry of Defence whether that could be speeded up?

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course do that. I am pleased to be able to help the hon. Gentleman in relation to his constituent. In recent years, like many hon. Members, I have appreciated the recognition, through the Bomber Command medal and the Bomber Command memorial here in London, and in other ways, of the courage displayed by those who were part of Bomber Command in the second world war.

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

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

I have moved new clause 1, but I shall wait to hear what the Minister says in response to the debate. I suspect that I will be greatly reassured by what he says in respect of parliamentary privilege, and that by removing any reference to the Bill of Rights or any wording thereof, the two Government amendments put this Bill back in the normal category of all Bills, that privilege applies and that the unstated presence of the 1689 Bill of Rights looms over this Bill as it does over any Act and our privileges are therefore secure, there is no ambiguity about that and it is accepted by the courts.

Indeed, I do not expect that the courts wish to be drawn into adjudicating on detailed matters of privilege. It remains uncomfortable and untidy that hon. Members might try to avail themselves of parliamentary privilege when they are not entitled to it and we end up with embarrassing court actions, but that is not an excuse for legislation in this area. The courts have demonstrated, as we saw in the Chaytor case, that they are capable of disposing of those cases in a manner that we would find perfectly acceptable.

Echoing the comments of my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), I still have concerns about the implications of the Bill. These measures were drawn up, presumably, to protect Members of Parliament. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 states:

“A Member of Parliament who makes communications within section 2(3) on behalf of a person or persons resident in his or her constituency does not, by reason of those communications, carry on the business of consultant lobbying.”

How have we written a Bill that could possibly construe Members of Parliament going about their ordinary course of business as carrying out consultant lobbying? Yes, we are paid by Parliament and therefore we are paid, and yes, we are paid, in part, to represent our constituents, but is it assumed that any court might by accident include us in the definition of lobbying and therefore require us to register as lobbyists in order to represent our constituents?

I am pleased that that is being taken out because it was absurd to confine the exemption merely to representing residents in our constituencies, as defined by section 4 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. If I were representing a 15-year-old, I would be caught by the Act. It was an absurd piece of drafting. Why was it necessary to put it into the Bill? I hope the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that the Government are taking it out of the Bill now. That is the right thing to do.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely interesting speech, which thus far has touched on issues surrounding Members of this House. Has he given any thought to the possible implications of the Bill as originally drafted, and as it will be without the offending paragraphs if the Government carry the House, for Members of the other place?

[Mr Jenkin]

I note the earlier debate on the guillotine. All I can say is thank God for the other place. The hon. Gentleman raises a point that Members there may want to address, though if the Minister can give us the assurance that we need that he has complete confidence and has had advice that no court could possibly construe a Member of Parliament as a lobbyist, I imagine that would also apply to a Member of the other place. But the hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly valid point.

The point, of course, is that we are paid by Parliament to serve the national interest, and to exercise our independent judgment on behalf of that interest, to represent our constituents and to play our part in proceedings as members of political parties, because without parties democracy would not function. Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that all the normal dealings of a Member of Parliament, whether or not he or she is paid or sponsored by outside interests in the usual legitimate way, will not fall within the scope of the Bill and that we will not be required to register as lobbyists? It is important that he gives that assurance so that the courts are clear that that was the intention of the Act.

[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.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention so quickly. Will he add to his list the peculiar situation we have in Northern Ireland, where there are five absentee Sinn Fein Members? MPs who do take their seats receive communications from those five constituencies asking us to make representations to various Ministers. I would hate to be labelled a consultant lobbyist simply for acting properly on behalf of constituents who are not represented in this House by a sitting MP.

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point and underlines the problems there would have been had the Government not listened to the concerns of Members on both sides of the House and tabled their amendments.

[Mr Jenkin]

The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has made an extremely valuable point. It shows how narrow a view some of the people who draft this legislation have of what Members of Parliament actually do. They think that we are simply a post box for our constituents. They do not understand that we are meant to exercise our judgment and represent interests from outside our constituencies as well as views and opinions, and indeed the national interest. They have no conception of that, which I am afraid is reflected in the Bill’s original drafting.

[Mr Thomas]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I want to explain how those two paragraphs arrived in the Bill.

[Paul Flynn]

May I raise with my hon. Friend a question that he himself has raised? There is a difference between this House and the other House. There was a recent investigation into the conduct of a Member of the House of Lords who was behaving in a way that would be condemned in this place as reprehensible, but the Lords have not come to a final conclusion. It relates to a Lord who was campaigning and lobbying on behalf of the Cayman Islands. The excuse given was that there is a difference between the two Houses because Members of the House of Lords are not paid and so are entitled to go around making money by hiring themselves out to the highest bidder. Surely that is a matter of public scandal that must be addressed.

[Mr Thomas]

If my hon. Friend, who is an expert on these questions, will bear with me, I will come later to some of the issues relating to the House of Lords and the extent to which the Bill affects the performance of its Members.

I accept that it was probably not the intention of the Leader of the House that Members of Parliament should be affected in the way that I and other Members who have intervened have described and that that was a result of the Bill being so badly rushed. Had Members on both sides of the House not raised concerns, these sensible amendments would not have been put forward by the Government.

As I indicated, I want to ask a couple of questions about the impact of the Government’s amendments and whether any lessons have been learnt from the process by which the offending paragraphs ended up in the Bill. As several Members made clear on Second Reading, and as the standards committee spelled out, there was a series of concerns about the inclusion of paragraphs 1 and 2 to schedule 1 and their impact on parliamentary privilege. The Committee’s helpful report noted the evidence that had been received by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in March this year. The evidence from Lord Judge underlined the risk of including specific exemptions for MPs in this, or indeed any, Bill. It also underlined the concern that future legislation relating to Members without such an exemption might inadvertently affect parliamentary privilege.

Did the Leader of the House consider that report from the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, and if not, why not? Did he take any advice on the inclusion of those paragraphs before signing them off and presenting the Bill to Parliament? Does he now accept that pre-legislative scrutiny, and perhaps a further period of public consultation with the industry and its stakeholders, might have prevented such a considerable error?

A further concern the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege highlighted relates to the inclusion of a definition of who is resident in an MP’s constituency using the 1983 Act’s description of who can and cannot vote.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

At least eight or nine major charities are headquartered in my constituency. Does he believe that I would be prevented from representing their interests because they, as corporate bodies, are not resident? How does he see that affecting my ability to represent those charitable interests?

[Mr Thomas]

I think that I did the hon. Gentleman an enormous service back in the 2005 general election, but I am happy to try to be of service to him now. He has rightly raised a concern about whether he would have been able to do the job he wants to do on behalf of those charities had the Government not finally brought forward their amendments.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has been very generous in giving way. I have taken a great interest in autism and introduced a private member’s Bill that ultimately became an Act. I worked with the National Autism Society, which provided me with back-up, information and material for distribution among colleagues. I worry that the Bill would inhibit any MP in acting that way. I was acting not on behalf of a constituent but on behalf of the cause, and will continue to do so. I want to make sure that nothing stands in the way of that work of an MP.

[Mr Thomas]

I commend the hon. Lady for her work with the National Autism Society, not least because it does an excellent job but also because a former member of my staff works for it. Whether her work with the National Autism Society would have been called into question by the Bill is an extremely pertinent point. It is a worry that Ministers rushed out the Bill, and it appears—this is why I have asked the question of the Leader of the House—that not very much advice was taken from the House authorities before the Bill was published. As a result, considerable concerns have been raised by Members on both sides of the House, detracting inevitably from the House’s ability to look at other parts of the Bill.

Will the Leader of the House set out with whom he, his ministerial colleagues or others involved in drafting the Bill consulted before inserting the offending paragraphs? I ask because it has not always been easy to track which Minister and which Department was leading on this Bill and it would be useful to know whether the Leader of the House has considered whether a repeat of the error might be avoided in the future. I emphasise gently to the Leader of the House that the mistake might have been avoided had there been pre-legislative scrutiny, a further period of public consultation and a proper attempt to involve the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in particular.

I turn now to a question that I raised in an intervention on the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex: the impact of the Bill on the other place. As the Bill is currently drafted, a Member of Parliament’s pay could also be construed—a point the right hon. Member for Wokingham made—as payment for third-party consultant lobbying. In the other place, peers are given an allowance and are not paid a salary. There is an expectation that those in the other place can earn a living beyond their work there. The House of Lords code of conduct is currently being reviewed by a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. It would be helpful to get a specific assurance from the Leader of the House, or his colleague the Deputy Leader, on the extent to which, if at all, the Bill as drafted, and as it would be if the Government amendments were carried, would affect the other place. These are clearly questions that members in the other place will want to explore, quite rightly. But we also have a responsibility to think through some of the issues around the other place. It would be helpful to hear from the Leader of the House on the extent to which he has considered this question.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. She would not be affected by the Bill as she would be behaving as a Member of Parliament and not engaging in the course of a business. The payment she receives as a Member of Parliament is not regarded as payment for these purposes, and she can undertake all her normal activities. The same is true for the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, because shadow Ministers and Members may raise any issues they wish. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) can represent not only her constituents but anybody she likes in her responsibilities as a Member of Parliament, and is in no way constrained from doing so.

[Mr Thomas]

The Leader of the House has been at his most reasonable in the past few minutes, but he has not yet touched on how we ended up in this position. I asked whether he would set out who was consulted—were the House authorities consulted before the Bill was published? I asked, and I gently ask again, whether he would accept that one lesson of this episode and this Bill might be that pre-legislative scrutiny would have been helpful?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman knows from our previous conversation that we talked to the House authorities about parliamentary privilege. The implication of what he says is that the Bill was in a sense deficient because Members of Parliament were caught, but they were not. In the original Bill, Members of Parliament were exempt by virtue of the fact that they were engaged in a public duty as office holders, not in the course of a business. To that extent, we included provisions intended to give additional reassurance, but that simply muddied the waters and it was simpler to do it in the way that we, together with the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, accepted. We accepted an amendment in Committee, and all I am doing today—I hope—is making it clear that the combination of those amendments in Committee and the amendments now being considered respects the views of the Standards and Privileges Committee and protects the rights of this House in relation to privilege. It also entirely protects the position of Members of Parliament who are undertaking their duties, however they construe them. On that basis, I hope Members will support Government amendments 28 and 29.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for being utterly clear about the intention of this Bill, which is that Members of Parliament and Members of the other place are not intended to be included in the provisions of the Bill. He has listened and read the report from the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and the Standards and Privileges Committee of this House, and has understood the concerns raised. I emphasise the importance of removing the second paragraph in schedule 1, subject to amendment 29, because were it to remain it would have the effect of narrowing the exemption to an absurd degree. That is why it is important to remove it; it is not only redundant but would be highly damaging because it would suggest that what is not excluded by the clause would implicitly be included under the Bill. I will not press new clause 1 to a vote, because the Leader of the House is dealing with these matters in an exemplary manner, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Duty to apply a code of conduct

‘(1) The Registrar shall, after wide consultation with relevant stakeholders including the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee, prepare a code of conduct with which all registered persons will be required to comply, and may produce revised codes from time to time.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay any professional lobbying code of conduct before Parliament.

(3) Any code shall provide that any inappropriate financial relations between registered persons and Parliamentarians are strictly forbidden.

(4) An organisation or person included on the register which contravenes the provisions of the code of conduct shall be liable to civil penalties as set out in section 14.’.—(Mr Thomas.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Thomas]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 6—Duty to report—

‘The Registrar will report annually to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons on the operation of the Register.’.

Amendment 84, page 54, line 15, after ‘satisfied’, insert ‘after consultation with the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons’.

Government amendment 31.

Amendment 85, page 3, line 7, leave out from ‘business’ to end of line 8.

Amendment 86, page 3, line 15, at end insert—

‘(h) the name of the employer and the address of employer‘s business; and

(i) the names of members of staff employed by the person registered.’.

Government amendments 17 and 18.

Amendment 87, page 3, line 21, at end insert—

‘(c) the approximate value of the registered person’s spending on their lobbying activities for each quarter.’.

Government amendments 19 and 20.

Amendment 89, page 3, line 37, after ‘client information’, insert ‘and spending on lobbying’.

Government amendments 21 and 22.

Amendment 100, page 3, line 47, at end add—

‘(c) if the registered person engaged in lobbying in the quarter in return for payment (whether or not the payment has been received), the purpose and subject matter of the lobbying services provided by the registered person; and

(d) if the registered person received payment in the quarter to engage in lobbying (whether or not the lobbying has been done) the purpose and subject matter of the lobbying services provided by the registered person.’.

Amendment 90, page 4, line 7, at end insert—

‘(7) Spending on lobbying for each quarter is the approximate value of the amount a registered person spends on their lobbying activity for each quarter.’.

Government amendments 23 and 24.

Amendment 92, page 4, line 40, after ‘appropriate’, insert ‘including in written form’.

Amendment 93, page 5, line 26, leave out Clause 10.

Government amendment 25.

Amendment 94, page 6, line 28, after ‘incomplete’, insert ‘or misleading’.

Amendment 95, page 6, line 36, after ‘incomplete’, insert ‘or misleading’.

Amendment 96, page 6, line 42, after ‘incomplete’, insert ‘or misleading’.

Government amendments 26 and 27.

[Mr Thomas]

Reasonable though the Leader of the House was about the previous set of amendments, he will have to reach unprecedented oratorical heights for the Opposition not to press new clause 4 to a vote. The new clause seeks to establish a code of conduct that would help establish standards of behaviour for consultant lobbyists. Such codes exist already in a number of other countries that have tough lobbying regulations—Canada and Australia, for example, both have codes of conduct to which registered lobbyists must adhere. Indeed, this House’s Political and Constitutional Reform Committee also recommended a statutory code of conduct.

There was some debate in Committee about the elements of a possible code of conduct, and that point bears dwelling on and expanding a little. Surely, top of the list of standards in a code of conduct should be the requirement that lobbyists and their clients tell the truth to those they meet. Another element that might be worthy of inclusion in the code is that lobbyists must be open about who their clients are. Members of the House, Ministers and permanent secretaries are entitled to know who is lobbying them and for what purpose. Surely there should be a requirement that lobbyists advise their clients if they are about to commit illegal or unethical acts.

It is not clear to Labour Members—and, I suspect, to other Members—why Ministers do not want such basic principles of good behaviour enshrined in a code of conduct. In Committee, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), suggested:

“The experience of regulators in other jurisdictions clearly shows that statutory codes of conduct for lobbying can be unworkable and unenforceable.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 786.]

Sadly, she did not feel able to give the Committee any more information than that bald statement. If it remains the Government’s position that they do not support a code of conduct, it would be helpful for the House, those in the other place and those who watch our proceedings if they set out clearly the international examples that led them to the conclusion that statutory codes of conduct are unworkable and unenforceable.

If there is no code of conduct, we will be in the rather odd position in which the registrar can punish lateness in providing or submitting information, but cannot punish lobbyists who deliberately hide who they are working for from those they are lobbying. Before being drawn up, a code of conduct would need to be properly consulted on with all relevant stakeholders, including the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I accept there are already a number of voluntary codes of conduct in the lobbying industry, some of which are extremely comprehensive. Sadly, however, not every lobbyist is a member of one or other of those voluntary codes.

Gavin Devine, chief executive of MHP Communications, one of the bigger lobbying firms, noted there is a risk that simply securing a place on the register might enable lobbyists to imply they had a kitemark or some sort of endorsement, without having to operate to particular standards. Other evidence presented to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee suggested there might be an economic issue for some who decide to register and pay the registration fee, but do not want to pay any more for the cost of being a consultant lobbyist, and therefore would no longer be part of a voluntary code of conduct.

Surely, there is a risk that, once registered, a lobbyist will simply decide not to bother with any of the voluntary codes of conduct. On 9 September, the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) tried to argue, interestingly, that peer pressure would drive lobbyists to adhere to a voluntary code of conduct. Unfortunately, given that there are several voluntary codes across the industry, that would risk having different standards. Having one clear basic code of conduct would offer clarity about the minimum standards that lobbyists should meet, avoid confusion about which voluntary register was the best one and offer clarity to the House and the Government about the standards required of those who seek to lobby us. A code of conduct might also help to regulate those who want to lobby the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Greater London Assembly or the National Assembly for Wales, were they to be included in the code of conduct.

One voluntary code that bears looking at is that produced by the Association of Professional Political Consultants. Why do not Ministers think that its 18 elements should be standardised across the industry? Item 2 states:

“Political consultants must act with honesty towards clients and the institutions of government.”

Surely, we all want to see consultant lobbyists acting with honesty towards clients and the institutions of government. Why do the Leader of the House and his colleagues in government think that such a provision should not be written into a code of conduct and that every consultant lobbyist should have to abide by that most basic of standards?

The APPC code also states that lobbyists

“must use reasonable endeavours to satisfy themselves of the truth and accuracy of all statements made or information provided to clients or by or on behalf of clients to institutions of government.”

Again, that seeks to continue the principle of truthfulness among those who seek to lobby Parliament and the institutions of government. Why should there not be such a reasonable expectation that when we are told something, it is truthful and accurate? It is not clear, certainly among the Opposition, why Ministers think that such basic standards should not be required of all those who lobby.

The APPC code also makes it clear that those who sign it should be

“open in disclosing the identity of their clients and must not misrepresent their interests.”

Again, I ask the Leader of the House why such a basic standard for the lobbying industry should not be enshrined in a code of conduct. Why should everyone who seeks to lobby us not be required to meet that most basic of standards?

Another provision that might be included in a code is the requirement that lobbyists do not make misleading, exaggerated or extravagant claims to clients. Anyone who has followed the unfortunate publicity that some lobbyists have generated will be aware that some have made exaggerated claims for their influence on the Government or Members of Parliament. Again, a basic requirement that lobbyists should not make misleading, exaggerated or extravagant claims would surely help to protect those who use the services of the lobbying industry. Why do Ministers not think that clients should be protected from such basic bad behaviour by a would-be lobbyist and therefore have it written into a code of conduct?

Interestingly, the APPC code deals with payments and offers of entertainment and mementoes. It makes it clear that

“political consultants must not offer or give, or cause a client to offer or give, any financial or other incentive to”

somebody in government

“that could be construed in any way as a bribe or solicitation of favour”

Again, that must be a basic standard we would want all consultant lobbyists to abide by. If one shares that view, it should be written into a code of conduct, so that all consultant lobbyists have to abide by it, not just those who, in this case, choose to be members of the APPC.

[Lady Hermon]

The wording of new clause 4, to which the hon. Gentleman is speaking, is curious. It states:

“Any code shall provide that any inappropriate financial relations between registered persons and Parliamentarians are strictly forbidden.”

That suggests that there are inappropriate financial relations and appropriate financial relations, which I am sure is not what he meant.

[Mr Thomas]

Indeed not, although I do not see the hon. Lady’s concern about the wording. She will be aware of several cases of allegations of inappropriate relationships, which we need to address, and a code of conduct could help us to do that.

[Lady Hermon]

To clarify, is it the Opposition’s position in the new clause that some financial relations between parliamentarians and registered consultant lobbyists are in fact appropriate? Surely, any financial relationship should be strictly forbidden. The word “inappropriate” should not be there at all.

[Mr Thomas]

We are seeking to establish the principle that there should be a code of conduct dealing with the relationship between Members of Parliament and the industry and covering a whole series of other questions. I hope that the hon. Lady will be persuaded of the need for such a code of conduct. I accept that consultation on the detail would be required, but if we could persuade her and the whole House to join us in the Lobby to support new clause 4, and if it were carried, I would hope she wanted to respond to such a consultation.

[Lady Hermon]

I am so sorry to be persistent, but I am even more confused than when I made my first intervention on this point. I am wildly enthusiastic about having a code and am willing to support the principle, but I cannot support the wording in the new clause. I would like the hon. Gentleman to explain what could possibly be an appropriate financial relationship between a registered lobbyist and a parliamentarian. No financial relationship is appropriate, so my problem is with the word “inappropriate”. Will he address that point, please?

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Lady is right that it is very difficult to see how any direct financial relationship could be appropriate. I come back to a particular provision in the APPC code that might shed some light on this issue. The provision makes it clear that in relation to entertainment, for example, or to token mementos, no incentive should be given. It might be possible to suggest that such circumstances involve a financial incentive, but my point is that we need a code of conduct and we need clear details of what should be in it. I hope that that explanation will persuade the hon. Lady to support our proposal for a basic code of conduct, and that she will be able to play a role in being consulted on the details.

New clause 6 would place a duty on the registrar to report to Parliament annually on the operation of the register. The Information Commissioner has a similar duty under the Data Protection Act 1998. At the moment, the Bill implies little accountability to Parliament by the registrar. Given the registrar’s powers to impose civil penalties, to issue guidance and to make financial decisions, some accountability ought surely to be provided for in law. Let us remember when, all those long days ago, Government Members supported the signing of the coalition agreement. Page 21 of that document contained a commitment to strengthen the powers of Select Committees to scrutinise major public appointments. Surely new clause 6 follows the spirit of that provision. Indeed, even the Liberal Democrat manifesto promised to increase parliamentary scrutiny of Government appointments. New clause 6 would allow just that.

Even at this late stage—if not today and tomorrow, then in the other place—we hope that the Bill can be made more effective and, crucially, more wide ranging in regard to the number of lobbyists it covers. It remains our view that it should cover all lobbyists, and that it should provide for a clear code of conduct. The registrar would have an even more important role to play if these proposals were accepted, as we hope they will be. There is therefore even more need to ensure the registrar’s accountability to Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I have followed the debate with a great deal of interest. It seems to me that the additional safeguards that the hon. Gentleman wants to put in place would be so convoluted as to create a lawyers’ nightmare. Surely it would be simpler to strengthen the guidance to Ministers and Members of Parliament than to try to enshrine all this in the Bill.

[Mr Thomas]

I say gently to the hon. Lady that I understand her frustration with the process, but we are trying to make the best of a bad job by the Government, and to tidy up a poorly prepared Bill. She makes a reasonable point, however. Had we had the opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny and for a further period of consultation with the industry on the details of the lobbying provisions in the Bill, we might not have needed to table amendments to try to make the Government’s proposals more workable.

[Mrs Main]

I have a degree of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Many of us have concerns about the Bill, but he might just be making matters worse, despite his best intentions. I do not believe that the Bill will catch the behind-the-scenes lobbying that the public are most concerned about. The emphasis should therefore be more on ensuring that Ministers and Members of Parliament act totally correctly, rather than on trying to second-guess every little nuance that a lobbyist might come up with.

[Mr Thomas]

I have to disagree with the hon. Lady. If we can get the rules for lobbyists right—or as right as we possibly can—at the beginning of the process, we should be able to limit the scope for problems further down the line. In tabling our amendments, we have been motivated by what has happened in other countries that have statutory codes of conduct. Our research suggests that such measures have had a positive impact in helping to make lobbying more transparent in those other jurisdictions. That is why I commend our proposals to the hon. Lady and to the House.

I suspect that, once lobbyists had got used to the new regime, they would become extremely comfortable with a code of conduct and with the other requirements that I have set out. Clearly, there would be a need for the registrar to do some educational work, but I am sure that that would be possible. I am concerned, however, that because so few lobbyists will be covered by the provisions of the Bill, the registrar might not be financially sustainable in the way Ministers hope. If that is the case, I fear that there would not be sufficient resources to do the educational work that would form part of the registrar’s public duties. I hear the hon. Lady’s reluctance, but I urge her to keep the faith and to come with us into the Lobby tonight in an effort to make a bad Bill a little bit better. [Interruption.] I think I heard her say that the Bill was rubbish, or at least saw her mouth those words. I would not use such terms, but I understand her frustration with those on her own side.

I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) speaking to amendment 100. His interesting amendment seeks to require the declaration of the purpose and subject matter of a lobbying exercise. Our amendments 86, 87, 89 and 90 would have a similar effect, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will offer his own specific analysis of the merits of his amendment.

Amendment 92 would allow the registrar to publish the register—not only on a website, but in any other form that the registrar thinks appropriate, including, I would suggest, in written form. The key here is to ensure that the register is as accessible as possible.

Amendment 93 would remove the provision that deals with privilege and self-incrimination. This is surely a somewhat archaic principle, holding that an individual cannot be compelled to provide information that would then incriminate them. I am not sure why we need this provision to be included, so the Leader of the House might like to dwell in his reply on the need for its inclusion. This is essentially a probing amendment, intended to allow the Government to set out their argument.

Amendments 94 to 96 would ensure that a lobbyist who submitted a misleading entry to the register would be committing an offence under the Bill. Again, we seek to make the register a more transparent document and an accurate source of information about who lobbyists are working for and how much they are receiving for doing so. We want the legislation to provide for clear consequences if lobbyists fail to provide the required clarity and transparency about their lobbying work. If, for example, a lobbyist’s entry were somewhat ambiguous, the registrar could, under our amendment, take steps to compel the lobbyist to be more open, clearer and more transparent about their activities. If the Leader of the House intends to oppose these amendments, I would be interested to hear his thoughts on whether misleading entries should be regarded as acceptable and on why no sanctions should be imposed on lobbyists who provide the registrar with misleading information.

I very much hope that the Government will, in the end, come round to the view that in-house lobbyists need to be brought under the scope of this legislation. A code of conduct, provided for by the principal new clause in the group, could then cover a whole series of lobbying activities and require all lobbyists to adhere to clearer standards of behaviour. Many in the lobbying industry who are practitioners of political lobbying work to high ethical standards, and they unsurprisingly support a code of conduct. It is far from clear why the Government do not support a statutory code of conduct.

[Mr Allen]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to colleagues for the two speeches on this group of amendments.

Let me start with new clause 4, moved by the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). The proposed new clause would require the registrar, after consultation with stakeholders including the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, to produce a code with which all registered persons must comply or face a civil penalty. We are talking about a statutory code with a requirement for a penalty if it is not complied with. The exchanges between the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) amply illustrated that there is scant detail about what such a code would contain, so the amendments reveal that the Opposition intend to create not only a register of lobbyists but a full-blown general regulator of the industry. While the Government are seeking to shine the light of transparency on the key issues in lobbying and the impact on key decision makers, the Opposition are bent on regulating the lobbying industry as a whole. They would regulate the behaviour of the huge number of individuals and organisations that would be captured by the definition of professional lobbying that they suggested in Committee.

The Government recognise the industry’s efforts to improve lobbying practice by introducing its own codes of conduct and we are confident that that will continue. Those codes promote the ethical behaviour that is essential to the integrity and reputation of the lobbying industry. The voluntary, self-regulated codes contain laudable principles and good practice guidance, but their translation into statute is hardly sensible—nor is it feasible. The experience of regulators in other jurisdictions illustrates clearly that statutory codes of conduct for lobbying are effectively unworkable and unenforceable.

[Mr Thomas]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Lansley]

I was going to answer the point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier, so let me give him an example and then I will let him intervene.

The consequence of seeking to regulate the whole industry is that in Congress the point has been reached at which there is an 894-page manual. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously proposing that we should go down that path, having a similar relationship between the lobbying industry and this Parliament to that in Congress?

[Mr Thomas]

The right hon. Gentleman is now making a different point from that made by the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) in Committee. She argued that there were plenty of examples of statutory codes of conduct that were not working. The right hon. Gentleman is making a different point and I would gently suggest to him that the experience from Canada and Australia, where statutory codes of conduct exist, suggests that such codes can be made to work perfectly effectively.

[Mr Lansley]

I do not agree. The consequence of large-scale statutory codes is considerable expenditure.

Let us consider the simple questions to which we have no answers. The new clause states only that there should not be inappropriate financial relationships; the hon. Gentleman does not tell us what those inappropriate relationships are or explain why they are not already prohibited by instruments such as parliamentarians’ codes of conduct, which we discussed earlier, or laws on bribery and corruption. How would the provisions of the code be enforced? What resources would the registrar require to monitor and enforce compliance, particularly if seeking to enforce compliance against imprecise, vague and wide-ranging—understandably so, as far as the voluntary code is concerned—principles and prescriptions? Trying to set up such a structure of enforcement in relation to such a wide-ranging code for such a large number of people is completely unsustainable. Who would foot the bill? The bill for the measures in Canada is equivalent to £3 million and this proposal would clearly cost much more. In any case, the Canadians go about things in a different way from us. It is not a case of adopting what they do, because they do not take our approach. We set out, through the transparency of Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ diaries, to approach the issue in a completely different fashion.

We are not trying to set up a register that controls what the lobbying industry does. Our approach recognises that lobbyists have a job to do. They are engaged in a self-regulatory structure. We are not trying to introduce a bureaucratic monster to oversee all that. We are clear that the key decision makers should be transparent about who they are seeing, and that—as the Bill would now ensure—where it is not transparent, in that they are meeting someone who is representing, as it were, their own interests, where they meet consultant lobbyists, those consultant lobbyists, through the register, are required to disclose who their clients are.

I am afraid that new clause 4, and much of what we heard from those on the Labour Front Bench and from the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), suggests that either they are not clear about what problem they are trying to address or they are simply trying to create a bureaucracy. We are not in that business. They are trying to create something that the Government have been very clear we do not want to create. We believe in transparency. We do not believe in the large-scale regulation that they are pursuing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

We have already made a commitment that Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ diaries for each quarter would be published by the end of the subsequent quarter.

[Mr Thomas]

Is not the point about Ministers’ diaries that so few consultant lobbyists actually go to meet Ministers directly? Making a great virtue of the publication of Ministers’ diaries is therefore a complete red herring.

[Mr Lansley]

That brings us to some of the other amendments. We are clear that the key decision makers are the gap in terms of transparency. We want to be clear whom the key decision makers are seeing. There are plenty of amendments on that subject in the next group, so I will not answer that point. It would of course be possible to extend that to lots of other groups, but we should consider the bureaucracy that would be created by doing so, by imagining 5,000 senior civil servants all publishing their diaries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

No, I have answered that question.

Amendment 93, tabled by the Opposition, would remove clause 10. I must confess that I am still bemused. We made it quite clear in Committee that the effect of doing so would be that in response to an information notice a person would not be required to provide any self-incriminating information, including in relation to any offence committed in relation to the register itself. The amendment would entirely undermine the enforcement regime relating to the register.

The Opposition’s amendments 94, 95 and 96 would make it an offence for consultant lobbyists to report misleading information. Although the intention behind the amendments is undoubtedly sound, I do not believe that they would have a substantive effect, as in order to be misleading the information must be either inaccurate or incomplete, and that is already covered by the clause.

The Government’s amendments in this group include amendment 31, which will allow the registrar to make direct payments to staff who have been seconded to support the office holder in addition to or instead of payments being made to the Minister or other person who seconded staff to the registrar. The registrar can also make payments to Ministers or other persons who supply accommodation or other services to the registrar under the general provision to make arrangements set out in paragraph 8(1)(b) of schedule 2.

Clause 4(3) outlines the client information that should be included in each register entry. Amendment 17 clarifies that if the registered consultant lobbyist has not engaged in lobbying or been paid to engage in lobbying during that quarter, its register entry for that quarter will contain a statement to that effect, as set out in clause 5(5), in lieu of any client information.

Amendments 18 and 19 will ensure the clarity and consistency of references to the periods for which consultant lobbyists are obliged to provide information. In the existing Bill, the three-month period prior to their initial registration about which consultant lobbyists must provide information in their register entry is called the “relevant pre-registration period”. This amendment changes the references to that phrase in clause 4 to the phrase “pre-registration quarter”, reflecting the references to the quarters for which client information is required after registration and ensuring consistency across the Bill. I hope that is clear.

Amendment 20 will ensure that the parameters of the pre-registration quarter are unambiguously defined as the three months ending on the date on which the person applies to be registered. The amendment changes the definition of the relevant pre-registration quarter period from the period of three months preceding the application date to the period of three months ending on the application date.

Amendments 21 and 22 will make it clear that register entries must include the names of the person or persons on whose behalf lobbying is undertaken, reflecting the reality that consultant lobbyists are likely to be engaged by more than one person during a quarter, and ensures consistency across the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment 23 clarifies the registrar's duty to update the register in accordance with the information returns submitted by consultant lobbyists by removing the unnecessary reference to “receiving the information return” which is covered in the following sub-paragraph.

Amendment 24 makes clear the separation of what the registrar is required to do, and what it may do. The registrar must publish the register in accordance with requirements set out in section 6. The registrar may also publish entries in respect of persons who were but are no longer entered in the register, but this is not a subset of its requirements under section 6.

Amendment 25 makes it clear that it is an offence for a “registered” person to carry on the business of consultant lobbying if they have submitted incomplete information to the registrar. This puts beyond any shadow of a doubt the class of person that is caught by this provision.

Amendment 26 will clarify that a person guilty of an offence relating to the register is liable to a fine, whether they are summarily convicted or are convicted on indictment. If convicted in a Crown court, the fine will be unlimited. If convicted in a magistrates court in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the fine will not exceed the statutory maximum. If convicted in a magistrates court in England or Wales before the coming into force of section 85 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the fine will not exceed the statutory maximum; if convicted after the coming into force of that Act, which removes the statutory maximum in England and Wales, the fine will be unlimited.

Amendment 27 further clarifies that an appeal against an information notice or the notice or imposition of a penalty can be heard either by the first tier tribunal or, if so determined by or under the tribunal procedure rules, the upper tribunal.

When the time comes, I would welcome the opportunity to move the Government amendments standing in my name.

[Mr Thomas]

We have had a very good debate on these amendments but, sadly, what has become clear is that whenever meaningful transparency has been suggested, the Leader of the House has cited the danger of a huge level of bureaucracy as the reason real transparency cannot be achieved. This Bill is badly titled; instead of the Transparency of Lobbying Bill, it would be better and more accurate to describe it as a little bit of transparency on a little bit of lobbying Bill.

The Leader of the House did not revert to the attempt made by the former Minister, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who suggested that there were plenty of examples of countries around the world that had statutory codes of conduct that suggested that such codes were unworkable. The one effort that the right hon. Gentleman made was to cite the American political system as being a reason that a statutory code of conduct would not work here. Not even the scale of incompetence that the coalition parties are managing to achieve in government comes close to the scale of dysfunctionality in the American political system at the moment. It is not a meaningful comparison to cite the American code of conduct; more sensible would have been to point to the examples of Australia and Canada, as I sought to do. Experience there does show that a statutory code of conduct can be made workable and enforceable, and could help to achieve the objective of delivering real transparency when lobbyists meet Ministers and indeed members of the House of Commons. A clear, basic code of conduct would avoid confusion over which voluntary register was the best one. It would offer clarity to the House and, indeed, to those in Government about the standards expected and required by those lobbying. I urge the Government to accept, even at this late stage, the benefit of having a code of conduct, even for the tiny number of lobbyists their Bill will cover.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), in a very well-judged speech, highlighted the number of loopholes that exist in the Bill. He cited the balance of evidence presented to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, suggesting that further information should be included in the register, including the scale of financial information, the subject matter of the lobbying, and the purpose of the lobbying activity. He noted that representations for that additional information had come to the Committee from a range of organisations as diverse as Spinwatch all the way through to the Royal College of Nursing.

Our amendments sought to inject that greater level of information and transparency into the process. I deeply regret that even at this late stage Ministers are not willing to consider even their own versions of the amendments. I therefore seek the opportunity to press the new clause to a vote and urge all Members of the House to support it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise with some sadness to urge the House to reject the programme motion that has just been moved by the Deputy Leader of the House. I do so not because programmes are often inappropriate. When filibustering takes place, as often happens on a Friday, usually led by Conservative Members who sit at the very back opposite, meaningful debate often does not take place, so one can clearly see the case for having a programme motion. It would be fair to say that programme motions can often help to ensure that all topics are covered when a Bill is in Committee. In this case, however, much of the Bill has not been scrutinised in the way that the Deputy Leader of the House tried to suggest that it had been. Given how little time is set out in the programme motion, it is unlikely that we will be able to carry out line-by-line scrutiny.

Sadly, all this continues to be a bit of blot on the record of the Leader of the House and, indeed, his Liberal Democrat colleague, because they did not see the need for proper consultation with the third sector before the Bill was brought in. I accept that there was some consultation on what might be in the lobbying provisions, but there was certainly no pre-legislative scrutiny of either of the first two parts of the Bill. A proper amount of parliamentary scrutiny could have begun to have put this at least partly right. As regards part 3, the whole House is aware that the Government do not like anyone belonging to a trade union or standing up for themselves as work, so the lack of consultation over this part is hardly surprising. It is nevertheless still very disappointing.

What we have, then, is a Bill that is being rushed through Parliament. It has attracted huge concern from across the third sector about the chilling impact it will have on the perfectly legitimate campaigning activities of charities, so detailed line-by-line consideration could have begun to make up for that lack of consultation with charities before the Bill was published.

Indeed, consideration has been further delayed today by two major statements. Of course we would all have wanted those statements to be made, but as a result of them, unless the programme motion is resisted, the House will have even less time in which to consider the legitimate concerns put to many of us about part 1, let alone parts 2 and 3. If the Bill had been debated upstairs, it would have been far less disrupted by urgent business in this Chamber and more comprehensive scrutiny might—I say “might”—have been achieved.

What have we had so far? We have had one day for Second Reading, just three days for Committee and now just two for Report. Virtually every other piece of Government legislation will get more scrutiny than this Bill. I remember charities legislation during the last Session—a small Treasury Bill to amend gift aid provisions, yet that Bill was in Committee for two whole weeks, as well as having a full day for Second Reading and Report.

Most of the lobbying industry and its stakeholders think this Bill is little more than the emperor’s new clothes for the industry. It amounts thus far to a pretence of action: when so few will be covered, the damaging lack of transparency that exists in the industry at the moment will remain even after this Bill, as drafted, goes through. It is thus difficult to see how we will have time over the next two days to do justice to the concerns that have been put to hon. Members—on the Government side as well as on our side. I therefore urge the House to reject the motion and I encourage the Government to allocate more time for debate.