Business of the House

John Redwood Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

It is my hope that this afternoon’s debate will provide an opportunity for Members from all parts of the House to address the international terrorist threat that we face. I will talk to my hon. Friends in the relevant Departments to see whether we can ensure that we return to the matter regularly. Northern Ireland has extensive and distressing experience of the consequences of terrorism. We all need to come together as a nation to support the families and victims of the most recent attacks in a way that helps them to recover from the ordeal.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

When will the Government respond to the five Presidents of the European Union institutions who have recently set out plans to accelerate progress towards controlling economies and tax systems and creating a euro Treasury? Do I take it that the Foreign Secretary and others would wish to rule out the United Kingdom joining this wild ride to political union?

English Votes on English Laws

John Redwood Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman seems a tad on the exercised side. I simply do not accept that what he says would represent the common-sense view of the Scottish people who, after all, voted for the Union a few months ago. This is not about his constituents. It is about my constituents and the constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House. We have a Scottish package of devolution; we have a Welsh package of devolution; and we have a Northern Irish package of devolution. The SNP has argued for 20 years and more for the Scottish people to have more control over their own destiny. We are giving the Scottish people more control over their own destiny. Why is it therefore wrong for the English people to have some additional control over their own destiny? That is the point between us. It is not about wrecking the Union; it is about ensuring that there is fairness across the Union.

If we are to have a Union in which the different component parts have greater control over what takes place in the constituencies and areas represented, why is it wrong for England to have the same? I am afraid that this is something that Scottish MPs should welcome and accept as being part of a constitutional settlement that means that there will be a stronger Parliament in Scotland—probably the strongest devolved Parliament anywhere in the world. That is what SNP Members called for and it is what the Scottish people voted for, but they cannot turn round and say to the English, “It is not okay for you to have a bit of that same control over your destiny”.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am pleased that the Government now have an answer to the question I posed before the Scottish referendum—the question of who speaks for England. I am very glad that they are tackling the problem that devolution has posed—that Scotland could vote for a lower rate of income tax in the Scottish Parliament and then send Scottish MPs to this Parliament to impose a higher rate of income tax on England. Is it not a sign that the Opposition still do not get it—that there needs to be justice for England in this Union, as well as for Scotland?

[Chris Grayling]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, as ever. I find it difficult to understand how it is possible, in one week, for the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and his colleagues to vote in favour of full fiscal devolution for Scotland, and then to vote against the idea of England’s having greater control over tax measures that affect England. [Interruption.]

Devolution (Implications for England)

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

There is clearly a little bit of common ground, in that across the House we are determined to implement the recommendations of the Smith commission and to meet the commitments made in the Scottish referendum. As many of us have often made clear, that is not conditional on any of these other considerations or deliberations. Certainly that is common ground. The right hon. Gentleman did say that the Command Paper should be studied; that is certainly common ground.

There, perhaps, it comes to an end, because the right hon. Gentleman’s attempt to suggest that the Labour party was embracing and attempting to lead this debate is at the risible end of the scale of parliamentary statements. Saying that Labour has responded to cities and towns demanding greater say over their affairs when, for 13 years, those rights and powers were not given to the cities and towns of England is extraordinary.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about deliberations behind closed doors. The reason we have published options for consultation today is so there can be a wide debate and everybody’s views can be taken into account. But the people who have taken part in the deliberations have included the Labour leaders of many local authorities. I have welcomed into my office to discuss these things the Labour leaders of Birmingham, Cardiff, Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield and Liverpool. It is not that this process is out of touch with local authority leaders in the country; it is that Labour Front Benchers are out of touch with their own local authority leaders. They have performed the remarkable feat in politics of being out of touch with themselves in this process, with part of their party willing to engage and other parts determined not to, hoping that this will go away.

We have achieved something in terms of the Opposition’s deliberations, in that they have now said that they are open to the idea of Committee stages of Bills being dealt with by English, or English and Welsh, MPs. That is drawn from the McKay commission. But as the right hon. Gentleman knows, McKay presented a range of options, including that. We believe on this side of the House that as further devolution is now taking place to Scotland, it is necessary to have something stronger and more binding than the McKay commission recommended, which is why the addition of legislative consent motions is an idea put forward by both coalition parties.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the upper House. I remind him that legislation could have been enacted in this Parliament to reform the House of Lords, had the Labour party been prepared to help get such legislation through.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about a constitutional convention. The Command Paper sets out the arguments on a constitutional convention and the Government are open to ideas on that—but a constitutional convention cannot be an excuse for delay on what needs doing now in the British constitution. No one is arguing that the Smith commission recommendations should be delayed in order to wait for a constitutional convention. No one is arguing that the work on the Silk commission, and the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, should be delayed for a constitutional convention. Similarly the resolution of the issue on English votes and English laws cannot be delayed for a constitutional convention. That must be resolved and these are the options for resolving it.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

England expects English votes for English issues. We expect simplicity and justice now: no ifs, no buts, no committee limitations, no tricks. Give us what we want. We have waited 15 years for this. Will he now join me in speaking for England?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, for the whole of the United Kingdom, I hope, including England. My right hon. Friend has made a strong case for a long time that this issue needs to be resolved, in his view through advocating a particular option. But any of the options presented in this Command Paper would provide a substantial change in our arrangements and an effective veto for English Members over matters that affect only England, which I think is what he means by speaking for England.

Devolution (Scotland Referendum)

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Moore]

I certainly think that any attempt to create grievance about the process goes against the grain of what we understand to be the SNP’s willingness to be a full participant in the process. I believe, however, that John Swinney and Linda Fabiani will enter into their work with the commission in the right spirit and that they will be determined to work with others and respect the outcome of the referendum, which made it clear that Scotland should stay in the United Kingdom.

The different parties debated and set out their proposals for what they seek from the commission, according to the different principles that Lord Smith asked for, by the end of last week. It is important that we should adopt those principles, so that we can have a Parliament with the maximum range of powers to fulfil our ambitions for it. Those ambitions include an ability for the Scottish Parliament to raise more than half the money that it spends, while retaining at UK level sufficient fiscal capability and responsibility to allow the UK Parliament, and all the MPs who are part of it, to perform the functions that are best secured across the whole UK, including defence, the provision of a unified international presence, fiscal transfers and solidarity, social protection and equity, and the macro-economic foundations of our economy.

It is important that we entrench the Scottish Parliament to make it clear that there is no danger of its ever being taken away, which would be a political disaster. Now is a good moment to entrench it in the United Kingdom constitution. We must ensure that we maintain what is valuable about the United Kingdom, what people have argued and fought passionately for over the past three years, including the single market for businesses and a single welfare system whose core elements are available across the whole UK.

There is another dimension to this, which has formed part of the debate in England and in Scotland. Although it is not part of his official remit, I hope that Lord Smith will look hard at the issue of local devolution in Scotland, because the cries for decentralisation within Scotland are every bit as strong there as they are here.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as we wish Scotland to have substantial tax-raising powers in its own right, it would be quite wrong for Scottish MPs to vote on taxes for England or the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Michael Moore]

I shall come back to the issue of English votes for English laws in a moment.

I believe that there is a lot of support across Scotland for a modern Scotland within a reformed United Kingdom, and it is important that we should be serious about that reformed United Kingdom as well. Let us look at the inner workings of the United Kingdom, and particularly at the civil service. I am proud to have worked with some immensely talented people in the Scotland Office, the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and elsewhere. I saw for myself what could be achieved when people put their minds to working together in common cause. I saw the limitations as well, however. I saw the hollowing out of the United Kingdom Government’s presence and capacity in Scotland and, at times, a lack of understanding and sclerotic responses.

I plead for forgiveness for previously arguing for the abolition of the Scotland Office. I confess that I did that when I believed that the rest of the United Kingdom Government had a strong presence north of the border. Three and a half years in the Scotland Office disabused me of that notion. However, the resources, the policy-making capability and the stakeholder engagement in Scotland improved substantially in response to the referendum campaign. We must seize the moment and ensure that there is a step-change in Scotland on the back of that. We must not go back to the old days.

We must also look afresh at how we resolve disputes within the United Kingdom. We need greater openness and engagement in the joint ministerial Committees, and quicker resolution of disputes before they are elevated to constitutional crisis level. All of that is about more openness and a greater understanding of what is done in people’s names across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brown]

I will give way in a minute. What makes for a lethal cocktail—the Leader of the House did not even appear to recognise this—is that the Conservative party, as confirmed by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), wants to devolve 100% of income tax to the Scottish Parliament. This is not the nationalist policy or the Labour policy; it is the Conservative policy to devolve all of income tax to the Scottish Parliament and then immediately end the right of Scottish Members of Parliament to vote on income tax, on a matter as substantial as the Budget, in this Parliament of the United Kingdom. Until now, any income tax rise has been based on the principle that all contribute and all benefit. Now, under the Conservative proposal, all, including Scotland, would benefit from such a tax rise, if it were ever to happen, but only some, excluding Scotland, would contribute. [Interruption.] This is the Conservative party proposal. It is a radical proposal to devolve all income tax in Scotland and then preclude Members of Parliament in this House from voting on the Budget. [Interruption.] Before I give way, I want to say that no state in the world, federal or otherwise, devolves all income tax from the national Exchequer to regional, local or national assemblies, and no Parliament in the world would impose a national income tax on only some of the country but not on all of it. There are very good reasons why that is. We have to understand that this is the Conservative party proposal that has been put forward subsequent to the referendum.

[Mr Redwood]

rose—

[Mr Brown]

I will give way to the man who is the author of English votes for English laws.

[Mr Redwood]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for endowing me with that honour, but he should remember that the idea of English votes for English issues was in the Conservative manifesto in 2010 and that I expressly raised it before the referendum in Prime Minister’s questions, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) was standing in for the Prime Minister who was in Scotland. Everybody knew that this was the will of the Conservative party. More importantly, it is the settled will of about three-quarters of the English people.

[Mr Brown]

Why then, when the McKay committee reported, did the Government say that it needed only a thorough and rigorous investigation and did not support that view? The Prime Minister did not tell the Scottish people before the referendum that that proposal would come on the morning after the referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

It is clear that the sound and fury generated by the referendum campaign has still not entirely dissipated. What appears to be coming out of this debate is a general agreement that, although Scotland should not become independent, there should be greater devolution not only for the people of Scotland but for the people of the other parts of the United Kingdom. Yesterday’s Command Paper was a further step along that route. I am sure we all wish Lord Smith well in his endeavours.

Entirely understandably, the outcome of the referendum has generated calls for English votes for English laws. I will come on to that in a moment, but since we have been overlooked thus far in this debate, I would like to mention Wales. The Wales Bill has completed its passage through this House and is now passing through the other place. However, it cannot be said that the Wales Bill is the end of discussions on devolution in Wales. It was always intended to be a modest measure implementing most of the recommendations of part I of the Silk Commission report, as well as making minor changes to such matters as the title of the Welsh Assembly Government.

Last summer, however, the decision of the Supreme Court in the Agricultural Wages Board case made it absolutely clear that the Welsh devolution settlement was, in reality, always unfit for purpose. Unlike the Scottish reserved powers model, the Welsh settlement was a conferred powers model. It was always assumed under that model that unless powers were specifically conferred they were not included in the competence of the Assembly. That, the Supreme Court made absolutely clear, was not in reality the case. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales therefore indicated that Wales should move towards a reserved powers model. From the point of view of improving clarity, a change in the model is not necessarily the end of the process. What was defective about the two Government of Wales Acts was not so much the model of devolution, but that there was so much uncertainty about it: the edges were fuzzy. Moving to a reserved powers model will solve the problem identified by the Supreme Court only if there is crystal clarity about what is to be reserved. That is an exercise that has to be carried out with a high degree of precision. Indeed, one of the criticisms made by one of the Silk commissioners in evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee was that the Government of Wales Act had been a “rushed job”.

[Mr Redwood]

Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether Wales will want to have devolved power to set its own income tax rate when Scotland gets that power?

[Mr Jones]

That matter is already covered by the Wales Bill. It will be a matter for the people of Wales, in a referendum, to decide whether they want such powers. My own view, frankly, is that it is debatable.

More than four years in Gwydyr House taught me that the most problematic aspect of devolution is the cross-border effect. This matter was referred to a little earlier by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). Take, for example, specialist hospital care. At present, there are disparate health systems in place in England and Wales, which mean that, effectively, Welsh patients are treated less favourably in many respects in the English hospitals where they need treatment. Waiting lists are longer and it is a source of concern to Welsh patients that although they pay their taxes at precisely the same rate as English patients, they wait much longer for treatment. That cannot be right. This is one of the matters that a new Government of Wales Act has to address.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I am very grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate, which is about devolution across the United Kingdom as a result of the Scottish referendum and the proposals that have been put forward for greater powers for Scotland. It is therefore right that we hear from English Members, as well as Scots Members and representatives from Wales and Northern Ireland.

I pay tribute to all the people of Scotland, however they voted, for the tremendous example of participation in the democratic process that they gave the rest of us. The referendum debate and campaign captivated and almost became a source of wonderment to people everywhere who have been trying desperately to get people engaged in politics and civic society. It was a tremendous exercise. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) might agree with me on that point, but I do not think that he will agree with my next point.

I welcome the result of the referendum and the fact that this debate is about devolution and not separation, which would undoubtedly have dominated our considerations for many years. I am glad that a discussion on the separation of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom is not even on the horizon. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) mentioned that Northern Ireland had a referendum many years ago, in which people voted overwhelmingly in favour of Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom. Now, there is not even enough support in Northern Ireland for the holding of a referendum. There is no doubt about what the outcome of such a referendum would be. The clear decision of the people of Scotland in the referendum was widely welcomed in Northern Ireland because of our strong ties to that country.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether Northern Ireland likes her current settlement or whether Northern Ireland would like more devolved powers, in line with Scotland?

[Mr Dodds]

The talks on the future of devolution in Northern Ireland are about to begin in Belfast in the coming days. One issue on the table will be greater fiscal powers, including the possible greater devolution of taxation, such as corporation tax, which the Leader of the House mentioned. Given the unique set-up in Northern Ireland—we have a mandatory coalition, and people with diametrically opposed positions are entitled to be in government—we have encountered great difficulties in making things work satisfactorily because of vetoes and so on. Northern Ireland is unique in that sense. We need to have those discussions in Belfast. I am glad that the Leader of the House indicated that he is prepared to table proposals for change if there is agreement in those talks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

We are committed to retaining the Barnett formula. There will be an extension of the ability to raise and spend one’s own resources, not full fiscal autonomy. That has to be an outcome determined by the Smith commission—to see to what extent this can happen—but it seems to me that it is right. As the right hon. Member for Belfast North made perfectly clear, the outcome in each of the countries of the UK will look different because our devolution settlement is asymmetrical.

If there is not an English Parliament or fiscal devolution, a further question arises. Can we have English votes for English taxes? I might not agree with all my colleagues on this point, but I thought that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) raised an Aunt Sally and attacked it. There is not a Conservative proposal for English votes on income taxes. I do not think the analogy holds between devolution on income tax in the other countries of the UK and England. For example, Scotland has a Scottish Government with a Scottish Budget accountable to a Scottish Parliament, and it can determine Scottish income tax in that structure of decision making and accountability. We do not have an English Government, an English Parliament or an English Budget; we have a UK Budget, and to support a UK budget we must have UK taxation. We cannot contemplate the separation of English income tax, although we can devolve some taxes inside England, especially to local authorities and city regions.

[Mr Redwood]

Is my right hon. Friend seriously suggesting that Scotland could set its own income tax at a lower rate and that Scottish MPs could come to Westminster to make English people pay more?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am, because it is untenable to have a separate vote by English MPs on English income tax, if the consequence, should the vote go a certain way, were to undermine the UK Budget.

English votes for English laws is, however, entirely tenable, and we now need to act. I agree fundamentally with the McKay commission where it states:

“Decisions at the United Kingdom level having a separate and distinct effect for a component part of the United Kingdom should normally be taken only with the consent of a majority of the elected representatives for that part of the United Kingdom.”

However, that ought not to exclude the views of other Members, whether they be my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) or anyone else. We can do it in Parliament by making provision, through a Grand Committee or a legislative consent motion, for English MPs, or English and Welsh MPs together, to give explicit consent to legislation that applies separately and distinctly to England, or England and Wales.

That should not exclude the central proposition, however, that all laws made by the UK Parliament should be made by all Members of the House of Commons. Anything else would undermine the character of the Union Parliament, which is the basis on which our Union is constructed—the Crown in the Union Parliament as a whole. We can make it happen. It would be a proportionate response to the undeniable demand of my constituents, and constituents across England, that their elected representatives determine what laws are made in England, without the perverse and unacceptable anomaly—as they see it—of Scottish MPs voting on laws in England that do not apply to their own country. We can make this happen, but we need to make it happen now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I am very glad of the opportunity to say a brief word about how the north-east of England is affected in these circumstances. The first thing to be said about the north-east of England is that there was a real and palpable sense of relief when the result of the vote came through. That was particularly true in Berwick, where I live. I can walk to the border in a short time. That sense of relief then gave way to some further questions. The three points that arise, in roughly the order of the frequency with which they are raised with me, are the Barnett formula, the devolving of power and the West Lothian question.

The Barnett formula worries us not because we do not want the Scots to have adequate public spending, but because there is no similar protection of the amount of public spending that the north-east of England receives. As people are aware, in Scotland, public spending is 20% higher per head. In London as well, expenditure on transport is many times what it is in the north-east. Public expenditure on the arts is much higher. Therefore, there is a feeling in the north-east that we deserve some protection to ensure that the levels of public expenditure meet the needs.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Alan Beith]

I want to make some progress. The right hon. Gentleman may want to intervene later.

The second issue that concerns people in the north-east is about the further devolving of power. That region rejected the setting up of a north-east assembly and it will be some years before we go back to that possibility, but that has not dimmed the feeling that too many decisions are taken in London and that more things should be decided locally.

[Mr Redwood]

I intervene because I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman understands the Barnett formula. It starts with a percentage increase for England and bases the Scottish one on the English increase. Of course England is protected because it starts with England.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The north-east of England is not protected within that England formula. That is the point that I was making. I do indeed understand the Barnett formula, having been aware of it for many years and since Joel Barnett introduced it.

Let me return to devolving power. The likely vehicle for devolving power is the combined authority, the local enterprise partnership or some combination of the two. Every time we have devolved significant power within the UK, we have done so to a body we have designed in such a way that minority opinion is represented, including other political parties and rural areas. We have always used the proportional system in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London—in every case the Assembly is elected by a proportional system. However, there is a danger that, if we do not do something about the structure of combined authorities, we will have one-party states. In the north-east, neither Conservative nor Liberal Democrat opinion is represented in the leadership of the combined authority and rural opinion is under-represented, as it is in the local authority in Northumberland, where decisions are made for the benefit of the urban area, which do not work for rural areas—for example, decisions on transport for people to get to school or college. Therefore, further devolution of power within England is important to people in the north-east.

The third issue, which cannot be dismissed lightly, is the West Lothian question. English Members are not voting on matters of health and education in Scotland not because there is a sign over the door of the Lobby saying they cannot go in. It is because those powers are not dealt with here; they have been devolved elsewhere. The ideal solution to the West Lothian question is to devolve at least some of those powers within England, so that we are no longer trying to govern every detail of English life from the UK Parliament. Indeed we diminish its ability to serve as the UK Parliament if it spends a lot of time on that kind of detail.

There are exceptions to that. I do not believe there is an appetite to have different criminal law or property law in different parts of England, although there is a difference between England and Scotland in that regard. Therefore, there will never be a neat and perfect solution. Some devolution of legislative power may take place within the structure that exists in this place; some of the solutions that the McKay commission has put forward use that as a model. I suspect that there will be a combination—further devolution of power within England and a change in how we manage things in this House, so that, when it is behaving as a UK Parliament, it can focus its energies on that, and more English detail can be dealt with by English Members. However, in the minds of many people in the north-east, although that is important, it is perhaps not quite as important as ensuring that, in our region, we get some of the help that Scotland has had financially to deal with the problems we have both faced, and as ensuring that devolution for Scotland enables the north-east to engage fully in a partnership with our neighbours across the border.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

It is at times like this that we are reminded of Disraeli’s observation that the English are governed by Parliament, not by logic. There is a lot to be sorted out in this regard.

I start from the simple point that England must get what England wants. The change that is now taking place must lead to change in England. The question is what that change is and then how it will be decided by the English people. Let us be clear that the decision must be taken in England’s interests, like the decisions for Scotland, Wales and so on. Yes, the Union is important, but England cannot be the only nation of the Union that has to forgo its rights for the sake of the Union. With due respect to some of my colleagues, we cannot be told that Scotland can have something that suits Scotland but, on principle, the same thing must be denied to England because of the Union. No amount of Barnett theology, technical discussion about definitions or talk about two-tier or second-class MPs can solve the simple fact that it cannot be right that MPs from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland can vote on what happens in schools in my constituency, on the structure of the NHS in England and on the level of university fees when I cannot vote on the same issues in those nations and regions.

I say with respect to my friends and colleagues that England is changing. The days have gone when the English were happy to be happily confused as to whether we were British or English because we thought they both meant the same thing, and we have to reflect that. The new settlement needs to take into account English interests, but I have a profound disagreement with what the Conservative part of the Government is proposing, its timetable for forcing it through to a vote in a few weeks’ time and its attempt at making it a decisive—or divisive, rather—general election issue. It is worrying that the Conservative commentator Tim Montgomerie has tweeted today that this is a “classic Crosby issue.” Why is a discredited Australian tobacco lobbyist who has been hired by the Tories taking the role of trying to determine the English constitution?

What England needs is not the divisive choice of one particular solution to the problem, driven through by a Cabinet Committee to the exclusion of all the alternatives that the people of England would like to discuss, including an English Parliament, much greater devolution to England and the revision of the second Chamber. Why is just one proposition going to be pushed through without any broad discussion? Is it because the people of England look at this House and say, “All the expertise we need is there! These people absolutely speak for us. They represent the voices of every village, community, business interest, union and environmental group”? They do not look at us like that. They think we are out of touch and that we do not represent them, and they want the future of England to be decided after a debate that involves all of the people of England.

England needs to reach a consensus, not the confrontation that Lynton Crosby and the Prime Minister are trying to engineer. England needs a coming together, not a division in the way the Conservative party is trying to pursue the issue.

[Mr Redwood]

When I launched my “speak for England” campaign, I did not consult Mr Crosby; I did it because 70% of the English people want English votes for English issues and they want them now.

[Mr Denham]

The right hon. Gentleman proposed an English Parliament, but he will have noticed that the Prime Minister has excluded that option from the debate. Would he not rather have the process of a constitutional convention through which he could pursue his argument for an English Parliament, if that is what he thinks is right, and the rest of us could pursue what we think is right?

Back in 2007, I argued in this Chamber that a reformed House of Lords, democratically elected from the nations and regions, is the obvious solution: it would allow scrutiny of English legislation in the English part of a second Chamber. Our fundamental problem is that the Commons cannot play both roles: it cannot be both an English legislature and a Commons for the United Kingdom. At the moment, its priority is to be a Commons for the United Kingdom, to the disadvantage of democracy in England. Tilted the other way, it becomes a legislature for England, to the disadvantage of the Commons of the United Kingdom.

We need a different solution, but it is not for me or, with respect, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House to say what that solution should be. It is for the English people, after a proper constitutional convention—a proper debate—to settle on what they think is the best way for our nation to be governed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

It is a devolution of powers that will massively change the relationship between England and Scotland, and between this House and Scotland, so it is a major devolution. I want to share the views of my constituents.

[Mr Redwood]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is completely bogus to say that it is difficult to define an English issue? An English issue is a Scottish issue in England, and we should settle such issues here because those in Scotland can settle them there.

[Andrew Percy]

I quite agree. I am not the brightest person on planet Earth—most of my constituents are a lot brighter—but I understand the very basic concept that if a law applies only to England, it is English legislation and should therefore be voted on only by English MPs, or only by English and Welsh MPs in the case of English and Welsh legislation. I can work that out despite not being the brightest.

My constituents have also figured that out. Precisely because there has not been a constitutional convention ahead of this process or any consultation of the good voters of Brigg, Goole and the isle of Axholme, two weeks before the referendum debate I consulted my constituents on what they wanted. That was long before the issue of English votes for English laws had gained traction in the media. We sent out 3,000 surveys, and had 600 replies overnight; in the end, we had more than 1,000 responses. The overwhelming majority said that they wanted Scotland to remain in the Union. Given a simple choice, 86% told me that they wanted Scots, Welsh and Northern Ireland MPs to be stripped of their power to vote on English-only matters. I misquoted the figures when I intervened on the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs Riordan), but asked to pick just one from a range of solutions, 58% of them said that they wanted English votes for English laws, 16% wanted an English Parliament and only 8% wanted regional government in England.

The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen was quite right to say that something has changed in England. I asked my constituents whether they defined themselves as English or British, and nearly a majority of them now declare themselves to be English. There has been a significant change, which is why the demand made by England cannot be dealt with simply by saying, “Let’s devolve £30 billion of spending”, as was said by the Opposition Front Bencher. That sounds like an awful lot of money, but it is not even a third of the NHS budget. I was interested in his concept of English votes for English laws as a big Westminster stitch-up and in his saying that we are all out of touch, whereas devolving powers to local councillors is apparently what people want. I have looked at the turnout figures for local council elections compared with those for parliamentary elections, and I strongly suspect that if we take such figures as a basis for people’s faith in the political elite, people have more faith in this place than in their local council.

A longer-term debate must be had on the constitutional settlement of England and of the whole United Kingdom, and that perhaps merits a constitutional convention. In the intervening period, however, we can—in tandem with the devolution and the new settlement for Scotland—very simply define English votes for English laws, and if Labour does not get on to this very quickly, they will pay the price electorally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The three leaders of the main parties made generous offers to Scotland. I am sure that they wish to honour those offers, and I urge them to do so as quickly as possible. It would be easier if they could try to find some agreement among themselves, because, unfortunately, their offers were a bit different. I also urge them to be generous. I think we want to have the right spirit for this negotiation, and I disagree with the former Prime Minister: I think that Scotland should have full powers over income tax, and I think that the more fiscal devolution there is, the better. I think it makes a lot of sense for whoever is responsible for spending the money to be responsible for raising it as well.

However, I have also raised the question of England. I have spoken for England, and since I launched my “speak for England” campaign, I have been overwhelmed with support from around the country. More than 70% of the English people believe that we need English votes on English issues, and they believe that we need them now. That would be a first important step on the road to justice for England.

[Pete Wishart]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: he has been totally consistent. I actually used him as an example as I went around the meeting places of Scotland saying, “This is the real mood of the Tory Back Benches.” I was told that he was a siren voice—that he was in the wilderness—but he is actually the voice of the Tory Back Benches.

[Mr Redwood]

My voice is central to this debate because that is what the English people wish. I am merely trying to interpret their wishes, and I am proud to be able to do so.

We are told by some that this is too difficult to do. It is not too difficult to do. It is very easy to define an English issue: it is an issue that has been devolved elsewhere. What it makes sense for Scotland to decide in Scotland, England should decide in England. We are told that there are complications involving different types of MP, but we have different types of MP today. We all have different rights, duties and responsibilities, depending on how much has been devolved. Some of us can deal with all the issues in our constituencies, but we have the advice and the votes of others from other parts of the country who cannot deal with all the issues in their constituencies because those issues have been devolved.

What I am concerned about is equality for the voters. We are now talking about offering income tax powers to Scotland, which I think will happen, because all the parties agree with a version of it. It would be grossly unfair if the voters of Scotland, by their majority, could instruct their Scottish Parliament on what income tax rate they wanted, while the voters of England, instructing their MPs, might not get their wishes by a majority, because Members from other parts of the country might come and vote for a higher rate in England than English MPs or their constituencies wanted. It would be unfair votes, and that is what we need to address.

[Sir Robert Smith]

rose—

[Mr Redwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) has only just walked into the Chamber, and I do not want to embarrass him.

[Mr Redwood]

I say that we need justice for England, and that we need to embark on this course now. We could begin today if Scottish Members of Parliament, like those in the SNP, would simply say that they would no longer vote on English-only matters. We could do it quite simply by amending the Standing Orders of the House, which I strongly recommend.

I hope that other parties will come with us. I am offering something that is extraordinarily popular in England. All the parties are struggling a bit to be popular enough to win the general election, and one would have thought that they would want to associate themselves with something as popular as this. I cannot remember when I last supported something this popular, and I do not go out of my way to support unpopular causes. Yet I find MPs from other parties queuing up to disagree with the English people, to deny the English people justice, to say that an English person’s vote should not count as much as a Scottish person’s vote, and to say that, yes, they want to see an income tax rate set for England by people who will not be paying the tax, and who do not represent those who do pay it.

I say, “Justice for England! Justice now! English votes for English issues!”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

Weasel words, Mr Speaker. I do not think we need to waste any more time listening to the contributions from that corner of the Chamber.

The vow made by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition during the referendum campaign is already being put into practice. The Smith commission was up and running on 19 September and yesterday I was pleased to publish the Command Paper more than two weeks ahead of the schedule outlined in the previously published timetable—evidence that the Government are delivering on the vow.

The process is not just about the parties. The referendum opened up civic engagement in Scotland across sectors, communities and organisations, and Lord Smith has made it clear that he wants to hear from all those groups to ensure that the recommendations he produces are informed by views from right across Scotland. This will be the first time in the development of Scotland’s constitutional future that all of its main parties are participating in a process to consider further devolution. That is a truly historic moment and one that I very much welcome.

Of course, as many Members have pointed out, it is England that has experienced the least devolution of power in recent years and that is something that needs to be addressed. A key problem in doing so is that there is no consensus in England on what further devolution might look like. If nothing else, that much must be clear from today’s debate. I say to our English colleagues that the people in Scotland debated this issue at length over a period of decades, and they now need to do the same. What would English devolution look like? We have heard suggestions that it should involve structures within the existing constitutional architecture and of regional assemblies. We have even heard suggestions of an English Parliament. Those ideas have all been promoted in the debate today, but it is clear that the position in England is not yet settled.

[Mr Redwood]

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Conservative party has been going on about this since the last century and that it has been our settled policy since the 2001 election? We have thought it through, we have written the papers, we have argued in the pamphlets and we now want justice for England.

[Mr Carmichael]

I enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution and understand the passion he brings to the debate, but I would gently say to him that simply having a settled position in the Conservative party is not the same thing as building consensus across the wider community.

We have, of course, heard some discussion of the West Lothian question or, as it has recently been styled, English votes for English laws. The first of the terms, in my view, is slightly outdated, and the second is rather simplistic. The welcome transfer of powers to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the London Assembly, and the prospect of further devolution still, has created not just an anomaly but a complex one. The challenge to those who pursue the quest for English votes for English laws is that they seek to devolve power within Parliament but not within the Executive. That brings a range of new problems and unsustainabilities of its own.

Business of the House

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I take that as a warm welcome for the change of business, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She is right: my right hon. Friend the Scottish Secretary will be making a statement, coupled with the publication of the Command Paper that has indeed just taken place. Across the Government, and I think across the House, we are all very determined that the commitments made to the people of Scotland will be honoured. She said it is right that we should consider further devolution and its consequences for the rest of the UK. That is quite right. No one is looking for a partisan fix, but equally no one should imagine that the question of the consequences for England can now be evaded. Many of us will want to make that point in tomorrow’s debate.

As I said, I will give the details of further business on Thursday.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

If the Liberal Democrats agree to a simple amendment to Standing Orders on a Government motion as soon as possible, so that we can have English votes for English issues, can that be tabled urgently? When will the Leader of the House know whether the Liberal Democrats want justice for England?

[Mr Hague]

This is a matter of fairness for the whole of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend raises now, and has raised before, this very important issue. Discussions are taking place within the Government under the auspices of the committee that I chair. I have also invited Labour Members to attend that committee and put forward their own proposals. As I have said publicly, I believe we need to set a deadline and say that if we do not have cross-party agreement by the end of November—the same timetable as that for Scotland—then it will be important to test the opinion of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

This is a basic issue of fairness. For someone who lived in private rented accommodation and received housing benefit, these rules applied throughout the whole of the last Labour Government, and we had a situation in which neighbouring households could be treated unequally. The hon. Lady asked about the private Member’s Bill. The proposals in that Bill could cost the country up to £1 billion. Because we have introduced a cap on overall spending, making those changes would mean finding savings elsewhere. I have not heard any suggestions on that from the Labour party.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Assuming there is a no vote in the Scottish referendum, who in the Government will represent England in the new devolution settlement? Who speaks for England, because we need a voice and a new deal?

[Mr Hague]

Well, there are many of us. Having represented Yorkshire for 25 years, I can claim to speak for England from time to time—Yorkshiremen are always keen to speak for a far bigger area than they represent. All these debates are to be had once the referendum is concluded.

Select Committee on Governance of the House

John Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

This is a crucial decision and we need to make it in a timely and sensible way.

We stand on the threshold of momentous constitutional events. We might even lose a country from our United Kingdom, or we might go into a period of fundamental constitutional change with a massive devolution of powers. We will need good professional advice and leadership to complement the crucial work of the democratically elected politicians.

The Speaker is the servant of the House. Mr Speaker has shown, by the way he has said that there has to be a pause and a reconsideration, that he knows that he is the House’s servant. In turn, the House has to be fair to Mr Speaker. It is our duty tonight to set in process a way of resolving this problem in the best interests of everyone and in a good spirit, knowing that Mr Speaker also wishes the best for our House of Commons and will be guided by the House. It is our duty to come up with competent and sensible guidance for him. He undertook a process with a series of senior Members and an outside adviser in good faith and they came to a judgment. Apparently, that judgment does not suit the House. That is the House’s privilege, but we now need to find a better way of resolving the matter.

This situation has consequences not just because we need good guidance, and especially so at this time, but because if we want the best talent from around the world to apply for jobs in this place, we need to show that we are professional in handling such matters and that there is no danger of an unsuccessful candidate having their name revealed or trashed in the process. That is completely unacceptable.

I am therefore drawn to the view, which some are expressing, that we need to examine quickly but thoroughly the idea that there are two functions and that there need to be two different roles. There are many fine things about this House, but I think that we could be better at some of the things that come under the chief executive’s remit. We have many able, hard-working and talented staff and I do not wish to imply any criticism of them. However, a good chief executive would look at the way in which we handle guests. Are we happy with the queues and the way in which security is handled? We wish to be safe, but we wish to welcome people. They are our guests or our constituents. I do not think that we always get it right. We need to ensure that our catering provides what people want in a timely and sensible way. There might be opportunities to improve that. We certainly need to look again at technology and the how we communicate with those who communicate about us and with the wider world.

Those are all time-consuming tasks and I am not sure that they can be carried out by a constitutional expert living through a constitutional crisis, who needs to be up to speed with everything that happens in this Chamber and with the long history of our traditions, our law codes and our constitution, written and unwritten as it is. Somebody needs to provide that guidance.

[Mr Jenkin]

My right hon. Friend’s description of the importance of the role of Clerk of the House is absolutely right. I heard the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) say that he did not understand why the Clerk was paid on a different scale from the Speaker and a higher amount. The Clerk is paid on the same scale as a High Court judge, because he is the arbiter of the law of Parliament across the entire Commonwealth. The independence of his remuneration is part of his independence and has to be preserved.

[Mr Redwood]

I quite agree. It is a crucial role for a very senior lawyer and has to be rewarded accordingly, and at a level that means that they do not have money worries, because they need to spend all their time concentrating on the job. I am quite sure that the Clerk’s role is senior to and more crucial than that of the chief executive, but I also believe that we need to do our guests and ourselves a favour by having the best possible management. We need someone to come in and look again at our standards, our quality, the choice that we offer and the way in which we handle guests, technology, information and research, and our messages.

That is the spirit in which we should enter the debate. We should get behind our Speaker and give him the right instructions, and then we will have a better answer.

Deregulation Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

This group of amendments covers accident investigation, parking contravention, driving, and private hire vehicle licensing.

New clause 4 and amendment 24 deal with rail accidents and, specifically, tram investigations in Scotland. They will remove a prohibition in the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 that prevents the Rail Accident Investigation Branch from investigating tram accidents in Scotland. The prohibition was originally included at the explicit request of the Scottish Executive because operation and safety matters on tramways are a devolved matter. Until now, this has not been an issue as there were no tramways in Scotland, and in practice the power would never have been exercised. However, now that the Edinburgh tramway has entered public service, the prohibition is no longer appropriate. This is a devolved matter, so the consent of the Scottish Parliament is needed. Scottish Ministers will support the legislative consent motion required to remove the prohibition.

The RAIB is already a UK-wide organisation. Its inspectors investigate accidents and incidents on all mainline services, including in Scotland, and currently undertake investigations of tramway accidents in England and Wales. RAIB inspectors already have the required investigative expertise and the necessary powers to conduct a thorough investigation and make recommendations to ensure that lessons are learned. Should there be an accident or incident on the Edinburgh tramway, it is therefore appropriate that RAIB inspectors should be able to undertake an investigation.

If the prohibition on undertaking investigations of tramway accidents or incidents in Scotland were not removed, RAIB inspectors would have no statutory power to investigate, so the safety implications of any accident or incident might not be fully exposed, and there might be repeat incidents if the root causes are not addressed. Although the new clause is only small, the implications for the continued safety of our rail network of perpetuating the prohibition are significant.

The RAIB has already shown its considerable value in contributing to our having one of the safest rail networks in the world. I of course hope that it will never be necessary for RAIB inspectors to be deployed, but we must not be complacent. This is an opportunity to remove a small legislative anomaly, enabling RAIB inspectors to apply their considerable experience and expertise consistently across the whole of the United Kingdom.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

What has the accident experience of tramways in England been over the past year, and will the power include the ability to investigate pedestrians and drivers of third vehicles or bicycles that get caught by trams?

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid that I do not have figures to hand on accidents relating to trams in England and Wales, but I will write to my right hon. Friend on that subject. I assume that any investigation of an accident would assess its causes—for instance, if it involved a vehicle driving on to the tramlines—and would make recommendations about how to deal with such issues.

Government new clause 25 relates to changes in the use of CCTV for issuing parking tickets by post. The Government are concerned that the use of CCTV for on-street parking is no longer proportionate, and that local councils over-employ it to deal with contraventions when it would be more appropriate and fair for such contraventions to be handled by a civil enforcement officer. We have therefore committed ourselves to ban the use of CCTV for on-street parking enforcement. That was announced in September and re-stated in December 2013 as part of a package of measures designed to support high streets.

Under existing measures, when a CCTV camera is used by a civil enforcement officer to identify a parking offence, a penalty charge notice can be issued to the offender by post. In practice, that means that drivers may receive a parking ticket through the post several weeks after an incident, which makes it difficult to challenge the alleged contravention.

The Government are concerned that a proliferation of CCTV cameras for offences such as parking may undermine public acceptance of their wider beneficial use. To introduce the change, we need to amend legislation to prevent local authorities from relying so heavily on CCTV for parking enforcement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I rise to speak briefly on Government new clause 25 and more specifically to our amendments 61 and 1, which relate to taxis and maritime issues respectively.

First, I shall comment on what the Minister said about the CCTV measure. The short notice of the introduction of the amendment—it appeared only at the end of last week—suggests that it was a political hot potato, passed between the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government. There have long been rumours that the DCLG intended to scrap the use of CCTV even in sensitive areas, in contrast to the wishes of DFT Ministers. Over the weekend, press coverage of the issue was almost entirely dominated by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on whether DFT Ministers decided to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) has called a “pickled policy”, or whether this is simply an example of what the Government’s frequent use of the Alice in Wonderland principle of sentence first and trial afterwards.

It concerns us greatly that the measure was introduced so late in the day. It is at odds with the consultative approach adopted by the Department for Transport. A range of organisations, including Living Streets, the Local Government Association, the British Parking Association, the Freight Transport Association, Disabled Motorists UK, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and Guide Dogs for the Blind, have made their concerns known, yet the Government published the new measure before seeing those responses.

There are of course legitimate concerns that councils have been using cameras as a routine means of parking enforcement; that is wrong. There have also been problems where stickers, such as resident permits and blue badges, have not been visible and drivers have wrongly been issued with tickets; that is an occurrence that we should make as infrequent as possible. It is understandable that drivers become frustrated when the first they hear of an infringement is a letter through the post, without the opportunity to discuss the circumstances with an enforcement officer. So we agree with the Select Committee on Transport that there should be greater oversight of the way in which local authorities use cameras to institute penalty charges, but that could be done through statutory and operational guidance, which is exactly what the groups I just mentioned would have liked.

CCTV remains vital for parking and for traffic and safety enforcement in certain areas where the use of parking officers is not practical: schools, bus stops, bus lanes, junctions and pedestrian crossings all come into that category. We hear from the Government response to their consultation that those areas are to be exempted and that CCTV could still be used in these circumstances, but that is not on the face of the Bill and we would welcome confirmation that this is the case and that plans will be put into practice.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that there are times when a camera-based system can get the wrong end of the stick? A constituent of mine was prosecuted for moving into a bus lane; they did so to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle, but the council still went ahead with the prosecution.

[Mr Marsden]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an instance of which he has the full details but I do not. I will not comment on the particular point but will comment on the general point, which is as I have just said: these matters are best dealt with by discussions with the enforcement officer before the ticket is issued. To that extent, I think we are at one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marsden]

My hon. Friend makes the point for me.

The truth of the matter is that once again an ideological imperative to be seen to be cutting red tape is resulting in vital principles of good governance being relegated. Although we have rightly had a long drawn-out process from the Law Commission’s proposals to consider all the interests involved—I shall come on to some of those in due course and perhaps put the hon. Gentleman’s somewhat paranoid mind at rest—it has been marred by the Government’s rushed and risky proposals. These plans have been poorly drafted and badly consulted on and they could put the travelling public in danger.

Taxis and private hire vehicles play a vital part in connecting people’s lives. They provide a wide range of services—everything from trips to the airport to early morning trips back from nightclubs. They are an essential means of transport for a wide range of people without access to a car, particularly in cut off or rural locations. For young people—sometimes for recreation, but also for work, training or family commitments—and for older people, they are a lifeline, providing mobility and social cohesion.

Previous work, including that of the Transport Committee in 2011, showed that the regulation governing the trade is often complex and contentious. We, therefore, like so many organisations outside this House, hoped that the DFT would approach reform in an inclusive, comprehensive and balanced way, especially looking to use the expertise of users, taxi operators and local councils in piloting a new course. Sadly, that has not been the case. Opposition to these measures is widespread: the police, industry bodies and members of the trade themselves are warning that they have severe safety implications. Yet Ministers have introduced the specifics of the plans late in the passage of the Bill, leaving little opportunity for real engagement with industry stakeholders.

Despite the excellent speech made on 29 April in Westminster Hall by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield—he has been steadfast and vocal on the threat that this part of the Bill poses to vulnerable taxi drivers, and even today has been meeting delegations from a range of organisations concerned about the proposals—it is still not clear why these measures were not included in the Bill on Second Reading, so they could have been debated more fully. Is this a reflection of their on-the-hoof nature, or a conscious attempt to avoid the criticism that would inevitably follow?

The context of today’s discussion is important. We should consider the questions that the rise of new services such as Uber pose about the impact of new technologies on the trade. The Government must be clear about what priorities they set for private transport companies, and surely those should be safety and security. That is quite the opposite of the piecemeal reforms being introduced in the Bill. What is needed is a far more comprehensive look at the regulation and enforcement of the taxi and private hire trade. That is exactly what the Law Commission announcement about the need for a new national framework underlined, so why on earth are this Government cutting the ground from beneath the Law Commission’s feet with these ill-thought-through proposals?

In the detail of the clauses we are opposing, the Government plan to allow people without a licence for a minicab to drive one when it is off duty. That could or will greatly increase the potential for rogue minicab drivers, who appear no different from legal drivers on the streets and could threaten vulnerable passengers, including women, who enter their vehicles. It will be nearly impossible to enforce these rules; it will be difficult to monitor whether a minicab is in service or off duty, and whether the driver is a minicab licence holder or not. The Minister may respond, as he has before, by talking about London—several times in his speech I thought he was grasping at London like a drowning man grasping at straws—but other areas of the country do not have the same resources for enforcement, and the sad truth is that rapes and sexual assaults committed by people purporting to be private hire drivers are not uncommon. The changes to the law are rightly an issue of public concern.

[Mr Redwood]

If the licence is the guarantee of safety and the person driving the minicab would need the permission of a licence holder, is that not the continued guarantee? [Interruption.]

[Mr Marsden]

As my hon. Friends ask from a sedentary position, “How do you know?” I could also talk about the transfer of these licences but, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, this is about resources and enforcement. The truth is that we would not know.

The proposed measures might damage the entire legitimate taxi industry, too. Greater Manchester’s police and crime commissioner has said that there is a clear danger that they will lead to an increase in unlicensed private hire drivers taking business illegitimately and that the measures are a backward step for law enforcement. I say again that this move is unnecessary. Why have the Government not listened to the Law Commission, which led an extensive consultation on a complex issue, receiving 3,000 written responses from across the trade? The process involved a series of 84 meetings over four months, an industry survey and meetings—one of which I attended at Blackpool cricket club—where scores of taxi drivers all put useful points. Why have the Government ploughed ahead with these reforms? Was the review simply a waste of money?

My next point deals with the one made by the right hon. Gentleman. Ministers would also let minicab operators subcontract a job to firms in another area, which means the customer booking the taxi could not be sure of the individual or the firm picking them up. Customers would lose their right to select a firm based on a strong reputation for safety. Many vulnerable people may start to lose confidence in their travelling habits if they do not believe they have a safe cab company whose services they can rely on. These proposals also have implications further down the line, for the supply chain in taxis and cabs. We are talking about things being made in the UK, with jobs and livelihoods provided in the UK, and a valuable force for social cohesion. That force will be under threat if the general public lose confidence in the methods of regulation and licensing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

We have just heard 37 minutes of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), largely misunderstanding the Government’s modest proposals or exaggerating their consequences. Let me reassure him that I, too, would wish to see an inquiry into a maritime disaster reopened as soon as there was significant new evidence and a hope of getting closure for the troubled families, or safety recommendations to save people who venture on the seas in the future. I am quite sure that is what the Minister said and, as I understand it, that is exactly what the Bill achieves.

Similarly, in the case of taxis, none of us here wishes to endanger people using taxis, as some Opposition Members seem to think the Government wish to do, but the proposals are nothing to do with that. They are to do with the possible use of a hire car vehicle by the family of the licensed user for their own family purposes, but not plying for hire. It seems a perfectly reasonable and modest proposal so that families who do not have a large income do not have to run two cars, which they might find difficult to do.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Legislation must take account of possible unintended consequences, not just what seems to be a nice idea on the surface.

[Mr Redwood]

I agree, and that is what we are debating today. I am on the side of the Minister on this occasion. He might find that remarkable, but it seemed to me that he made a reasonable and moderate case. The language in the Bill and in the Government amendments does the job, so I am trying to reassure the Opposition, who seem to be giving a long-winded and misguided interpretation of what the Government intend. I would say the proposals are too modest overall. I would like to see more deregulation coming forward in these important areas, but in no way do I wish to jeopardise safety or give people a bad ride in their taxi.

[Julie Hilling]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman realises that taxi drivers, private hire vehicle drivers and the rest of the people in the trade are not asking for other drivers to be able to drive their cars; in fact, they are saying that family members should not be allowed to do so.

[Mr Redwood]

Some are with the hon. Lady and some are with the Government. She cannot generalise quite as wildly as she does. I understand that some associations take that line, but if one talks to taxi drivers and private vehicle drivers, one finds people on both sides of the argument. I do not want to go into those sensitive issues; I just offered a little support to the Minister because the language captures exactly what everybody in the House wishes to achieve—better safety and security.

I want to concentrate on the issue of car parking. I am grateful that the Government have brought forward, again, an extremely modest proposal to deal with the fact that many motorists feel they are picked on by councils that have turned parking controls into a way of making easy money out of them. The proposal goes only a little way in the direction I would like the Government to take. I understand the Minister’s difficulties, because we need quite a lot of local decision making, but the idea behind his proposal is that simple camera enforcement is not always the right way to go. I gave an example in an intervention to show how camera enforcement of a bus lane proposal could be very misleading and unfair to the individual concerned, who was trying to keep out of the way of an emergency vehicle. That is not always captured by the fixed position of the camera, which concentrates on the bus lane. There could be similar problems with parking enforcement.

The problem, which is a large one for many electors, comes from too many parking restraints and restrictions that have not been well thought through. Once again, Members have rightly defended good parking controls. I am very much in favour of good parking controls. I agree that we need to stop people parking on blind bends, near pedestrian crossings or in places where their vehicle could obstruct the line of sight and endanger safety. I also agree that we need parking restrictions on roads where the parking would get in the way of the flow of traffic, because that not only impedes the traffic and stops people getting to work or taking their children to school, but can create danger by causing frustration among motorists.

It makes sense to have sensible parking restrictions that ensure that the flow on roads is reasonable, junctions have good sight lines and are safe, bends have the best sight lines possible, and so forth. That should be common ground in the House, and I do not think the Minister is trying to stop councils doing that or enforcing those sensible restrictions strongly and fairly, as we want. But the type of parking restriction that we may well be talking about here, where some relaxation is needed, is where a piece of road which the council designates as safe and fair for people to park on at certain times of day or certain days of the week and not others is subject to such complicated regulation that sometimes a law-abiding motorist cannot work out from the local signs and practices whether the parking regulation applies or not. For example, do the parking restrictions apply on bank holidays? Often, the sign is silent on that point. Is the sign clear about whether different rules apply on Sundays? Is the sign close enough to the parking area in question? Are there different restrictions on different sides of the same street, as sometimes happens in London? Do we know where one set of restrictions ends and another begins?

There can also be variable bus lane times, and it can be difficult to keep up with the changing regulations. This shows that there are circumstances in which a council thinks it perfectly reasonable to allow parking in a particular area or use of a bus lane at certain times but not at others. The motorist could be in genuine doubt about the restrictions, or perhaps feel that they were unfair or frivolous because they did not fall into the category of restrictions that are essential to ensuring that traffic can flow and that safety sightlines are maintained.

We can use this little debate to probe the underlying problem that we are trying to address. We can also use it to allow the House of Commons to tell councils that some of them are overdoing parking restrictions or are chopping and changing the regulations too often during the day or on different days of the week. Perhaps those regulations have not been properly thought through. Perhaps the enforcement is unfair, or too sharp. If someone has been delayed by three minutes while paying for something in a shop, they could find that they have committed an offence because they could not get back to their car within the given time on their ticket. People often have to be quite prescient in those circumstances. They need to know exactly how long it will take them to get to the shop, find their goods, queue to pay for them at the till and get out again. They do not want to overpay for what can be quite expensive parking, but if they get it slightly wrong, they can end up with a big fine. That is why people think that this is a nasty lottery in which the councils are the only winners, and camera enforced parking restrictions can be even worse for the individuals concerned.

So, one cheer for the Government for realising that this is a big issue and coming up with their modest proposal on camera enforcement, but may we please have some more, because this does not solve the overall problem? Solving the overall problem will help parades of shops and town centres in places where trade is not good. This irritating, over-bureaucratic, over-regulated parking is one reason that people do not bother even to try to park in those areas, because they think they are going to end up with a fine for behaving perfectly reasonably.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point yet again. I absolutely agree that we need clarity on who is the driver of the vehicle, particularly one that is marked as a taxi, and what the vehicle is involved in, whether it be legitimate or illegitimate trade.

All the people who came to the initial meeting—drivers, trade union representatives, operators and enforcers—said that nobody in the industry was calling for the right for family members to be able to drive the cars. They are all happy with the current situation, because they understand how it protects them, their family and their trade when their vehicle is used for business, not pleasure. I find it difficult to understand where the proposal came from, because the trade is not calling for it. It might be very generous of the Minister to say, “A driver won’t have to have a second car because his wife can drive his”, but they do not want that.

There are real problems with the current system. I wholeheartedly ask the Minister seriously to consider removing these nonsensical provisions from the Bill, to make sure that we have holistic legislation based on the Law Commission report, and to support our amendment. We need a national register of drivers. We need national standards for drivers and vehicle operators before we ever allow them to sub-contract. We need robust licensing policies in all licensing authorities. We need a clear duty and method for local authorities to share data with the police and other local authorities. We need the local authority where taxis are operating to be able to undertake checks and enforcement wherever the driver or the vehicle is registered, and for the enforcement body to be recompensed for that enforcement.

The Government should, as soon as possible, initiate a proper national system for taxis and private hire vehicles. That would be welcomed by the profession and by everybody involved in it, including licensing bodies, local authorities, and, most importantly—

[Mr Redwood]

Is the hon. Lady telling the House that the current licensing system is poor and allows through people it should not? Is she really sure that councils would welcome a national system?

[Julie Hilling]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention because it allows me to reiterate what I said. Yes, the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Operators has called for a more rigorous policy. It welcomed the Law Commission report and the notion of holistic legislation that could introduce some of the things the Government want but also created a robust system to ensure that we do not have rogue operators, rogue drivers, or people who are a risk to the travelling public.

I call on the Government to introduce holistic legislation and to remove these three piecemeal and ridiculous clauses from the Bill to ensure that the travelling public are safe and not put more at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

I did not confuse them at all. I drew the distinction. I said that the reason people are fed up with the enforcement is that, in many cases, they do not think the rules are fair.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to challenge those rules, that is fine, but we are talking about the enforcement of the rules that exist. To most people, I think, the rules are probably reasonable, but the enforcement sometimes falls down, and I think that using CCTV to enforce those rules is absolutely right. I do not want the rules to be weakened, and I do not want the enforcement to be weakened. I want to help people who are affected badly by parking. For example, people park across my neighbour’s driveway when football matches are on. It is completely unacceptable that he should be blocked into or out of the driveway by other people parking across it; that is simply not on.

These problems may not be as important as the investigation of accidents at sea, or the potential dangers involved in the licensing of private hire vehicles, but they do affect people and people are concerned about them. I want strong enforcement of the parking rules to continue. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham said, we may sometimes challenge the way in which the rules operate, but they should be enforced none the less.

I entirely agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) about the need for a national register. There is no reason why we should not have one. We have automatic number plate recognition on a national basis. It ought to be very easy for the police to find out quickly who someone is and what his or her car is by means of an electronic register.

I also agree with what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said about the Bill. I was a member of the Joint Committee that subjected it to pre-legislative scrutiny. I thought then that it was driven by dogma, and I still think that. The Government want to say “We are the great deregulating Government,” so they must introduce deregulation Bills, but I am a regulator: I want more regulation in certain circumstances; I want life to be made more civilised; I want ordinary people to be protected by regulation. I do not want freedom for people who will make life miserable for other people, and that may mean more regulation. I am a re-regulator, not a deregulator. I shall certainly vote against the Bill tonight, not just because it is dogmatic, but because of what is in it.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will not get on to the subject of the banks, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you would stop me if I did, but I think that they are too unregulated now. We have banks in public ownership which are still not behaving themselves because they are not sufficiently regulated.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that the whole of banking regulation was completely changed by the incoming Labour Government, who introduced new agencies? I presume that he is criticising them.

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

John Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Allen]

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

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

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

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

[Mr Allen]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

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

[Mr Redwood]

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

[Tom Brake]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Mr Redwood]

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

[Mr Lansley]

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

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

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

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

[Mr Jenkin]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

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

[Mr Redwood]

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

[Mr Jenkin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Thomas]

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

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

[Mr Redwood]

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

[Mr Thomas]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barron]

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

[Mr Redwood]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mrs Gillan]

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

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