Business of the House

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend raises a subject close to my heart. I would normally say, “I shall write to the Minister who can advise him about further pots,” but I can probably tell him now because I have a 1930s lido in my constituency that I am renovating. I know how much the lido will mean to his constituents—it is not just a leisure facility but part of their heritage. There will be other funds, and we should connect him to other projects that have been supported through the coastal communities fund to really ensure that he has got the best advice to take that forward. I will write to the Minister on his behalf, but I am also happy to assist him with anything that I have learned along the way.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

In earlier comments, I found that the Leader of the House was trying to suggest that ambulance workers are not co-operating with management as nurses are. I recently visited my local picket of ambulance workers, and there was a protocol in place: when there was an emergency, the picket immediately and voluntarily went to see the patient. Will she withdraw her comments? Has she noted that this morning The Telegraph says that recent weekly statistics show that 2,837 more people than usual died, which is 20% higher than the average. Does she accept what is happening? There is not a shred of evidence that the strikes are causing these problems; it is a failure of management of the NHS by the Government.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Let me clarify for the hon. Gentleman that this is not about people not wanting to protect life. It is not about a moral judgement on behalf of those individuals. People who work in the blue-light sector and people who work in caring professions care deeply about the wellbeing of others. That is why they are in those professions. The problem is how these minimum service levels are arrived at and ensuring that we can have confidence in them and that they are also arranged in a timely way. Unlike nursing unions, which have a clearly defined and agreed way of working that covers the whole of the area affected by industrial action, the other services that I have referenced do not. They are very fragmented, and arrangements are often worked out with local management, as opposed to across the nation affected. This is about protecting the public and ensuring that when industrial action takes place, we can still protect the public. It is most acute, I am afraid, in the transport sector. I hope that that clarifies the position for the hon. Gentleman.

Business of the House

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for continuing to raise this matter. He will know that when the Ministry of Defence has looked at this and other issues, it has a judgment to make about whether a future inquiry would be in the public interest. The difficulty is, of course, that this is not necessarily a public interest, but a very private interest for family members and others involved. I will write to the Department on his behalf and ask it to explore other ways in which perhaps there could be some closure for that family.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Season’s greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and all members of staff of the House. On today’s nurses’ action, which has been taken most reluctantly, I want to say that two of the closest members of my family were gravely ill for weeks in Yorkshire hospitals, and I had an accident and almost lost the use of my leg, which was recovered thanks to the skill of the staff. The nurses looked after all three of us, as they do tens of thousands of other patients every day. They do not ask for anything, except that we leave that hospital better than we came in. They stand by us; it is time we stood by them. The Leader of the House no doubt believes she is an extremely persuasive person, and no doubt she is, so can she not, over the weekend, persuade the Prime Minister to make a statement on Monday or Tuesday—since there is another action on Tuesday—that he will resolve the nurses’ case to their satisfaction so that we can have a Christmas where the NHS begins to rebuild?

Business of the House

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Lady’s claim is not borne out when we look at who people vote for across Scotland. The Scottish National party is now a single-issue party. It is not gripping the issues affecting people in Scotland, and there is growing disquiet about that. This week we heard from the Auditor General on the subject of financial mismanagement; there are hundreds of millions of pounds relating to the ferry contracts that he cannot even account for. As we come out of the pandemic and we want our public services to be able to recover, and that should be the focus of the Scottish nationalist Government.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House may know that yesterday, during discussions about biodiversity in Canada, the Secretary-General of the United Nations said that humanity was is in danger of becoming a “weapon of mass extinction”. In my constituency there is proposal for a major incursion into the green belt that would threaten 27 separate native species, including some ancient woodland. Will she find time to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to green belt land and biodiversity, and may we have a debate on this essential subject, which should provide the background for any planning decisions for the future?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard the Prime Minister express his commitment to the green belt during Prime Minister’s questions this week, and the 2030 target to halt species decline is one of the planks of the Government’s environmental strategy. I am sure that a debate on that strategy and its success to date would be popular, and the hon. Gentleman will know how to apply for one.

Business of the House

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her continuing campaign. Business questions is becoming known as “Freeport Thursday” in my office, because she is always championing the project. I also congratulate her on the non-partisan way she does so. In addition to campaigning in Parliament, she is winning over supporters from her community and from across the political divide: I understand that the Isle of Anglesey County Council is putting jobs and local prosperity before politics and is supporting her and the Conservative manifesto commitment to enable this project to go ahead, bringing benefits not just to Wales but to the whole UK.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Everybody in the House knows that the reason the Bill on Monday has been changed is that the Government cannot deliver a majority for their top-down, random house building targets to be imposed on various local councils. May I make a helpful suggestion to the Leader of the House? Why not have a debate about house building and how we deliver our targets without damaging local democracy? That would test the views of the House and give me a chance to oppose a 3,000-house development in south Featherstone, which will do massive damage to the community and the local environment.

[Penny Mordaunt]

We are continuing with the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. There will be a second day on the Bill. That will happen shortly, and I will announce it in the usual way. The delays to some Bills are because of things such as the Finance Bill, which is pretty important, but house building is incredibly important. We want to ensure that people have the opportunity to have a safe, secure home and also the opportunity to own their own home, so I am sure that a debate on that topic would be welcomed by all Members.

Business of the House

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

The International Trade Committee had six months in which to examine the agreement before the commencement of the CRaG process. The Government’s commitment to holding debates on free trade agreements during that process is subject to the timeliness of requests and the availability of parliamentary time, and my hon. Friend will doubtless appreciate that there is a wide range of competing demands on time in the Chamber before the House rises for the summer recess.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

I am sure you will agree, Mr Speaker, that fish and chips are the great British culinary gift, and that the local fish and chip shop is often the centre of a community. You may not agree that the best fish and chips in the world are made in Yorkshire, but I will concede that the second best are on the other side of the Pennines.

Mr Malcolm Tully has run the same fish and chip shop, feeding the same community, for 30 years, having used his miner’s redundancy money to set up the business. However, it is now under threat because of the rising costs of various artefacts that he needs to use, and there are tens of thousands of other small businesses in the same perilous position. Will the Leader of the House organise a debate in Government time so that we can discuss the pressure on fish and chip shops and all the other small businesses in the country?

[Mark Spencer]

I declare my interest, Mr Speaker.

Let me join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Malcolm Tully on the work that he does. Fish and chip shops are indeed a great community asset, and there are some great ones in my constituency. They do face huge challenges—particularly the price of sunflower oil, which is driving many of their costs—but the Government recognise the great contribution that they make to our communities, and we should support them.

Business of the House

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Since this subject was last raised in the House, I have become slightly conflicted, because there is a freeport bid coming in from quite near me, in Bristol. However, it would not be right for me to campaign for my own area from the Dispatch Box. Freeports are a fantastic idea, which is why there is so much support for them and why so many Members want them in their constituencies. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his welcome efforts to campaign for a freeport in the east midlands, and I will make sure that his representations are passed on to the Treasury. He really is a great advocate for his constituents, and I hope that they will be able to reap the benefits of a freeport, but then I hope that the economy generally will be able to reap the benefits of many freeports.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) [V]]

We rarely debate the Government’s poor treatment of the north, where life expectancy is falling for the first time in a century, but where we have seen the severest cuts to public health service provision of any region. There are now 195 fewer GP surgeries in Yorkshire and we have the slowest declining covid infection rates. Meanwhile, the Government sent half of the north’s vaccine supply down south. We know that they cut free school meals for the autumn break, but hunger, poverty, service cuts and covid all march hand in hand. May we therefore have a debate in Government time on their disgraceful health record in the north of England?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Mr Speaker, I will of course bow to your wisdom on this, but I believe the word “balderdash” is parliamentary, and it applies to the hon. Gentleman’s question. The Government have stood with the north throughout this pandemic, with over £10 billion in support for local authorities, additional Nightingale capacity and millions of vaccine doses already delivered, and we are putting the region at the centre of our community testing plans, with 300,000 in Liverpool being among the very first to benefit. Looking ahead, we will be building on the £13 billion for transport across the region and £5 billion for the northern powerhouse, with High Speed 2; Northern Powerhouse Rail, our multi-billion pound rail investment; a £4 billion levelling-up fund, building on billions of pounds of towns fund investment; £4.2 billion for the local public transport fund; and four hospitals in construction, or about to start, as part of our 40 hospitals plan. This Government’s record in the north is second to none. We are building back better, and we are building back better in the north first.

Members’ Paid Directorships and Consultancies

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am discussing the motion and what it means or does not mean. It is difficult to speculate about what would happen or not happen in the future if we pass a motion, the meaning of which is not clear. In any case, the burden of the motion is one with which we disagree. It was not a joke about books. I was making, through a bit of humour, admittedly, a serious point: the Opposition do not know how they would apply a cap to somebody who writes a book, including a member of the shadow Cabinet, or to a farm.

One of my hon. Friends mentioned a farm. A distinguished Labour Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, owned a farm. How is someone with a farm meant to restrict their income to a fixed percentage of their salary? Would Lord Callaghan have had to resign from the House every time there was a good harvest and then try to return to it when the crops failed?

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Is the Leader of the House not aware that that precise system, though much more rigorous, is already applied in Washington, the home of free enterprise?

[Mr Hague]

I am also aware that we make our own rules in the United Kingdom. The United States is no longer our colony and we are not theirs, and we are entitled to make our own rules.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

This has been an interesting debate, although it has not always been of the highest quality. A number of contributions stay in my mind, but I will not have a chance to deal with them all.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) pointed out that £67,000 is a full-time salary and that this is a full-time job. That was a recurring theme. I remind those who say it is not that much that we are in the top decile. Nine out of 10 people earn less than us. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) reminded the House that almost four out of 10 people in her constituency earn less than the living wage.

My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), who I am sure is on his way back to the Chamber, reminded the House that there are Members of Parliament who are earning £1,000 an hour in addition to their salary. These are staggering amounts of money. The hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) used extravagant but accurate language to describe the horror that many people will feel when they discover how much money is earned by some Members of Parliament.

There were a number of interesting speeches by Government Members, which all boiled down to three arguments. I will deal with those quickly before getting to the point of our motion. There were the loud-and-prouders or topper-uppers, who were in favour of earning more because they felt that, as a result of what they did, they were entitled to a larger salary. They felt that £67,000 was not enough. I will come to that argument in a moment or two.

The Leader of the House said that our proposal was just too complicated and difficult to achieve. I reminded him that it has been done in Washington. In fact, Washington has gone much further than this relatively modest proposal. I am not saying that we should model everything we do on Washington, but it is interesting that the home of free enterprise and buccaneer capitalism has been able to regulate its elected members when the Government suggest that we cannot.

The third argument was that it helps the House to have the experience of people who do things outside. Of course it does. We all do things outside. The issue is remuneration. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) reminded us that he previously had two businesses, and he did the right thing—he closed one down and put the other into hibernation, so that there could be no conflict of interest. The central question is one of remuneration.

[Mr Spencer]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jon Trickett]

No, I do not have time.

The central issue that our motion is intended to address is the crisis of legitimacy that the British governing elite is experiencing. We encounter cynicism wherever we go, and in the end it will imperil the very foundations of our democracy unless we somehow regain the trust and respect of the British people. The question is, can we respond to a new zeitgeist that is everywhere in our country—one that is more democratic, egalitarian, non-deferential and occasionally even unruly? It is right that it should have all those attributes in the second decade of a democratic century.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jon Trickett]

No, I am not going to take any interventions.

If we do not respond to the current mood in the country, we will be lost as a House of Commons. I do not for one minute think that most voters imagine that their elected representatives are somehow superhuman and never make mistakes, and the Leader of the House rightly paid tribute to the two Members who have got themselves into trouble this week. I echo much of what he said. However, voters will judge us on how we respond to our mistakes. We need to show that we have reflected on any errors that we have made and learned the lessons, and that if necessary we will change the rules.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jon Trickett]

No, I am not going to take any interventions, because I do not have time.

We need to show that we have learned the lessons and changed the rules, to prevent any repetition of those errors in the future. The Opposition contend that it is a mistake for the House to continue with a set of rules on second jobs that were designed for another era. There simply is not time to spell out all the arguments for our proposition, but I will make two.

First, in an era when Victorian deference and hypocrisy have long ended, and rightly so, it is no longer acceptable for one set of rules to apply to the governing class and another to the rest of the country. That is how it will seem to millions of people if we continue to have a permissive policy on second jobs. After all, there are millions of people—thousands in every one of our constituencies—who work hard and play by the rules, yet are living in poverty. There are millions more who find it hard to pay their bills at the end of the month. After all, the average working person has lost £1,600 a year in salary since this Government were elected. When the people we represent hear the argument, which we have heard today, that an MP cannot live on £67,000 a year—plus an additional £14,000 for a Chair of a Select Committee, incidentally—they will inevitably ask themselves, “What kind of planet do these people live on?”

What about people who are on exploitative zero-hours contracts, who receive no guarantee that they will have a single hour’s work today, tomorrow, this week, next week or next month? Their contracts also prevent them from taking second jobs. How can we explain to them the idea that we should have second jobs? Then there are 1.9 million people who are out of work. How will the Government parties explain to the people in their constituencies who have no job that some of them have six jobs? It is simply impossible to imagine how they can justify it.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jon Trickett]

No. The right hon. Gentleman has had his chance and made his speech.

I said that I would develop two arguments. The second relates to who we are here to serve, and it is critical. Every hon. Member, when they first become a Member of the House, swears an oath of loyalty to the country and is required to serve their constituents to the exclusion of all other interests. However, if someone is a remunerated director or a consultant, they have a legal duty to the body corporate that employs them always to act in the financial interests of that corporation. The question that therefore arises in the minds of interested observers is how any hon. Member can reconcile those dual loyalties to the corporation and to the country.

I have previously given the House the example of a paid director of a tobacco company who is also an MP. If a matter of public health concerning restrictions of tobacco sales comes before the House, the perception will arrive in people’s minds that that hon. Member is balancing two interests—those of the person who pays the contract for the directorship, and wider public health. To be blunt, many electors will come to the widely held view that is summarised in a two-word Yorkshire phrase: money talks. The question is not simply about whether an MP has sufficient time to do a second job—although how they find the time is a good question—but about whether there is a conflict between their duty exclusively to serve the public and their employment in the service of a private interest.

The best way to resolve a problem is usually the simplest. We think that the simplest way is to impose restrictions on second jobs, and that is what today’s motion is about. For those reasons, and for many others outlined today, it is time for the House to move on. The Government amendment takes us no further; it is simply an elegant reformulation of the status quo and as such it will not do. Even at this late stage it is possible for Government Members to come through the Lobby, vote with Labour and begin to clean up politics, and I urge them to do so.

Let it be known that if the House rejects the motion today, the Labour party will introduce a new standing order for our MPs to cover these matters in the new Parliament, which is now only a few weeks away. Under those circumstances, let other parties do as they will. The people of the country will judge them.

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

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Thanks to the wonders of the internet, we already know what The Daily Telegraph thinks about today’s debate. It describes grisly scenes, referring to the contributions of Members on the Government Benches in today’s debate. It has been a particularly interesting debate and I hope the Government have listened very carefully to it—they have not listened to anyone else. They should at least listen to their own Back Benchers, and I will come to that in a moment.

The Government have achieved something remarkable —they have a Bill which is so dreadful that it has united the lobbying industry and campaigners who are trying to bring more openness and transparency to the lobbying industry. They seem to have united the whole of the so-called big society, but it is unity in opposition to the Government’s proposals. They even managed to ensure that the LabourList and ConservativeHome websites both came out against the Bill. Even the ultra-loyalist political blog Lib Dem Voice whispered its reservations about the Bill.

It has been a fascinating debate. We heard 27 or 28 Back-Bench contributions. I cannot refer to them all but, needless to say, there were powerful contributions from all parts of the House. Eighteen or 19 Opposition Back Benchers made the most powerful speeches in which a wide variety of concerns were articulated—concerns about the voluntary sector, trade unions and the way in which lobbying will effectively be left unregulated if the Bill goes through. Voices were clearly heard from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which will face additional problems if the legislation is adopted.

Significant contributions were made from the Back Benches by two Members who have been witnesses to lobbying in their own constituencies. One was the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who described behind-the-scenes influence and the expenditure of £12 million on attempts to reverse a planning consent. Let me tell the hon. Lady and the House that the Bill would not cover that as local government is wholly excluded from it, which seems to me to be remiss. We heard witness evidence from my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who described—whatever one’s view of the third runway at Heathrow—the most profound activities by employees, as I understand it, of BAA, who have passes to enter the Department for Transport. I have news for the House: those people would not be registered, as the register specifically excludes anybody who is a so-called in-house lobbyist.

The most important contributions of all came from three Chairs of Select Committees, speaking for all members of their Committees. The Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights said that he was very concerned that there had been no pre-legislative scrutiny and that the Bill would clearly impact on human rights. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), the Chair of the Standards Committee, warned the House that paragraph 2 of schedule 1 is likely to imperil the privileges of Members of the House which, we heard, have stood intact since the Bill of Rights in 1688. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) was the only Member who made what sounded like a positive contribution in relation to the Bill, but he planted a small hand grenade in his speech: he said that he could not support any attack on the rights and privileges of hon. Members. Yet the legislation appears to do precisely that.

Then we heard from the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who told us that the Committee was alarmed by the way the Bill has been introduced and pressed through in quite a reckless way. He assured the House that it was possible to reach a consensus on lobbying, even across the parties and across wider society, if only we took the time. A common theme running through all the contributions was this: why did the Government choose these particular time scales, which prevent pre-legislative scrutiny or witness statements being made to the Select Committee? I will return to that point in due course, because it is a disgrace.

There were seven contributions from Government Back Benchers, and each of them in their own way damned with faint praise either the entire Bill or elements of it. Whether or not the Leader of the House listens to contributions from the Opposition, he would be well advised to listen to the warning voices from Members behind him, particularly the story from St Albans. The hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) and for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) all warned that powerful vested interests lurk in our society, seeking to influence with the power of money the way we make decisions. They all warned that the legislation is simply inadequate in its present form and needs to be amended. Indeed, the Leader of the House himself said that he thought some amendments would probably have to be brought forward.

The Bill simply fails to live up to the demands of the epoch through which we are living. We live in a time of great flux and of distrust in the ruling political and commercial elites. We live in a democratic century in which—rightly, in my view—the wider public long ago abandoned deferential attitudes to the people at the top. They want to know how decisions are taken and on whose behalf. A quiet revolution is taking place in our country, with the growth of active citizenship, which this House would be foolish to ignore. People are much more active in taking control of their lives, which partly explains the explosion in the number of campaigning organisations, not-for-profit groups and charities. It is not simply that the Government misunderstand the zeitgeist I am describing; in truth, they consistently make the wrong decisions because they are too tightly bound up with the interests of the most rich and powerful in our country, rather than the millions who work hard, play by the rules and struggle hard to get by.

This legislation runs contrary to the spirit of the times in which we live. It permits lobbying by the rich and powerful to continue in an unregulated way and in the shadows, while at the same time it seeks to silence wider civic society. Big tobacco’s voice will still be heard in the seats of power, while the voices of cancer activists will not. The voice of arms manufacturers will be heard, but not that of the Royal British Legion. The voice of private medicine will be heard, but not the unions representing nurses and hospital cleaners. The tax avoidance industry will be heard, but not the tax justice campaign.

The Bill is poorly drafted and needs to be radically amended. We have tabled our reasoned amendment, which I hope Members will vote for. If it is rejected by the House, we should vote against the Bill. We then need to make one further decision tonight, on the allocation of time. I hope that Members who have reservations listen carefully to the point I want to make. The Bill is being stampeded through, and there are strong reasons why more time needs to be given, so we will oppose the programme motion.

Let me give six reasons. First, there has been no pre-legislative scrutiny; secondly, witnesses have not been able to come before the House to react to the Bill; thirdly, the debate on part 1 next Monday will be curtailed because there will be a statement and other business; fourthly, as we have heard, the privileges of MPs will be affected; fifthly, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North has told us that he believes that with time we could get a consensus; and sixthly and most importantly, we are witnessing a Bill that will change the British constitution in quite a fundamental way. There is no precedent for imposing an allocation of time motion under those circumstances. I very much hope that the House votes against this Bill.

Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that, as part of a wider regulatory framework for second jobs, from the start of the next Parliament no hon. Members should be permitted to hold paid directorships or consultancies.

It is good to see your cheerful face in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, although it might not last for long.

There is a compressed time scale this afternoon, so I give notice that I will not take many interventions. That is a shame because I was looking forward to them given that, until an hour ago, not a single Government Back Bencher had sought to speak in the debate. Somebody who is very mischievous said to me that that was because they were all off doing second jobs. I totally reject that suggestion. They are not making speeches because they are afraid of the argument.

I hope that the debate does not descend into the usual finger-pointing exercise. I have no interest in denigrating the activities of any hon. Member. The House should be clear that Members who have second jobs at the moment have not broken any rule of the House. I am not suggesting that anybody is less diligent as a Member of Parliament because they have a second job.

I will start the debate, by way of context, with a number: 895. That is the number of young people in my constituency who have no job, and yet here we are talking about MPs continuing to have several jobs after the general election. Some of those young people or their families might be watching our proceedings.

The Commons has always allowed MPs to have other jobs, but all rules—and above all, this rule—ought to be reviewed from time to time. In reviewing the rules, it would be better to make progress with consensus across the parties. However, let me be equally clear that if there is no such consensus, the Labour party will ensure, by the time of the election, that there will be regulations governing our candidates once they are elected.

There is a strong case for change. We have moved a long way since the time of Hugh Dalton, who reputedly visited his constituency once a quarter.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

As much as that?

[Jon Trickett]

Yes, and it is said that when he arrived, it was such a special occasion that the station master put on his top hat and tails and rolled out a red carpet for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

You get that every week.

[Jon Trickett]

Yes, I get the red carpet regularly, but only on the way back out.

I will quote two Prime Ministers, neither of whom are from my party. I am not in the habit of quoting Prime Ministers from other parties, but these quotations are quite relevant. More than a century ago, Gladstone said that “an MP who does his duty to his constituents has very little time for anything else”. Of course, MPs were all men in those days. In 2009, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) said that it was

“necessary to demonstrate 100 per cent focus on Parliament, politics”.

We can all agree that being an MP is a profession that requires an enormous commitment of time and energy.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

rose—

[Jon Trickett]

I will not give way yet.

Let us be honest: the demands on our time have increased dramatically since the time of Gladstone and, indeed, since 2009, when the current Prime Minister made the comments that I have just quoted. MPs are under more pressure than ever in their constituencies. Most of us spend more time than previous generations of MPs in the areas that we represent and our constituents rightly expect us to be there. I think that all Members on both sides of the House would agree that that is a positive development.

In addition to the work that we do in our constituencies, the role of Back Benchers in the Commons is changing. As reforms to the Select Committees, the modernisation of the House and the improved and increasingly intense scrutiny of legislation roll out, there is added pressure on our working week. There is also the fact that we live in an internet age of mass e-mails and 24/7 media. All that means that our work is increasing exponentially. In the mind of the public—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jon Trickett]

Hon. Members should listen to the argument. I am not making a case against any individual. Just listen to the argument and I will give way shortly. Let me make the case. In the mind of the public it is clear that there is an overwhelming mood, which amounts to an expectation, that we should be working full-time for our constituents.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jon Trickett]

The House needs to adapt its culture—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is not going to take interventions at the moment. [Hon. Members: “Shame.”] No, it is up to the hon. Gentleman. I will decide whether it is a shame or not. He said that he will give way shortly. What we also do not need is a Whip on the Opposition Front Bench trying to antagonise Government Members.

[Jon Trickett]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will give way in a moment or two.

Apart from the pressure on our time, there is another issue: the deteriorating reputation of politics in the mind of the public. We all know, for whatever reason, that the public perception of our role as law-makers and public representatives has sunk in recent times to an all-time low, and we need to address that. No single reform on its own can restore the trust that we need to rebuild, but better regulation of second jobs would clearly help. Here is one reason why. [Interruption.] I will explain why if the Leader of the House can be patient for just one second. He has to hear the argument before he can rebut it. Here is a reason why that can help. The issue relates to the problem of perception—I use that word carefully—of potential conflict of interest. Our primary loyalty as right hon. and hon. Members is to promote the common good for our country and our constituents, rather than our personal, private interests.

I am not suggesting for one moment that any right hon. or hon. Member is allowing the pursuit of private interest to interfere with their duty to the wider public interest, but I am suggesting that there is a widespread perception that that is the case. In politics, as we know, perception is just as important as reality.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

rose—

[Jon Trickett]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, but in doing so let me ask her this question. After the next election, Labour MPs will have no remunerated directorships or consultancies. Will she say the same for her party?

[Harriett Baldwin]

As the hon. Gentleman can see, I do not have any remunerated outside interests currently, but I did have one that carried forward after the election. He seems to making the case for separating the Executive completely from Parliament. Is he saying that none of those on the Opposition Front Bench would be prepared to be Ministers after the next election?

[Jon Trickett]

Let me say first that I note that the hon. Lady did not refer to the primary point, which is whether Government Members support reform. As regards the question of whether Ministers are somehow operating a private interest, that is a preposterous argument. Ministers work for the Crown on behalf of the public, because we live in a democratic society. For anybody to suggest that Ministers or a Prime Minister are somehow working for their private interests is a preposterous argument. I hope that when she reflects, she understands that that is the case.

If we stop to reflect for an instant, it is easy to understand how the perception I was describing might develop. The House will know that anyone who becomes a director of a company board, or consultant to a company, has a fiduciary duty—a legally defined concept—to that company. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have already had the Opposition Whips intervening. I do not need the Government Whips leading the march of opposition.

[Jon Trickett]

Fiduciary duty requires the person who sits on a board, or who is a consultant to a company, to act in the best financial interests of that company. MPs swear an oath of loyalty to the country and to their constituents. Let me illustrate the problem as I see it. Were an MP to find themselves on the board of, or be a consultant to, a tobacco company—to take an example at random—they would be bound by a fiduciary duty to pursue the financial interests of that tobacco company. Let us imagine proposed legislation to improve public health, which would be damaging to the interests of the tobacco industry, being introduced in the House of Commons. The perception of a conflict of interest would arise in the public’s mind. An explanation would have to be sought on the way an MP chose to vote, particularly if the remuneration received—as is the case for some hon. Members—is two or three times greater than the remuneration they receive as an MP. The public’s perception would lead to only one conclusion.

It is in order to tackle this problem that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has taken decisive action. From 2015, all Labour MPs will be banned from having directorships or consultancies for third-party commercial interests. I hope that other party leaders will see the sense of what we are proposing and move in the same direction.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jon Trickett]

I will on that point. I invite the hon. Gentleman to set out what he would say to the hundreds of young people under the age of 24 in his constituency of Dover who have no job, when he defends the right of MPs to have several jobs.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I would say to them that I do not have outside paid jobs. I am a Member of Parliament. My only job is as a Member of Parliament. Why did the hon. Gentleman, in 2009, vote against a ban on outside interests? Why is he doing a U-turn?

[Jon Trickett]

The House will have noticed that the hon. Gentleman has not said that he will vote with the Opposition to regulate second jobs. He acknowledges that there are hundreds of young people without a single job, and he has failed to address the central moral question. I would like all-party agreement on the Opposition’s proposal, but it looks like Government Members will not respond to it.

There are those who will make the valid argument that Members of Parliament need to remain connected to the world beyond Westminster. The problem is to my mind best resolved by having a set of MPs who represent far more diverse backgrounds than we have at the moment. For example, about 60 MPs went to 13 fee-paying schools.

[Helen Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem with second jobs and the connection with the outside world is that we seldom see Members taking low-paid jobs? They usually take very highly paid jobs. If they spent their time in their constituencies talking to their constituents, instead of working for firms in the City, they would know more about the real world.

[Jon Trickett]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. If we believe that we need to connect, then the choice of jobs that some MPs take is intriguing. I will come on to that point in a moment or two, because I have some thoughts on it. Having a more diverse set of MPs would be a better way of connecting the Commons to the world than simply saying that we should all take second, third, fourth or even fifth jobs.

I have spoken to Labour MPs who were involved in business activities before being elected and who remain closely interested in the corporate world in which they worked, but who, shortly after being elected, voluntarily ceased to take remuneration because they believed that being an MP was a full-time commitment. I have also spoken to many Labour candidates for the next election—a new generation of Labour MPs, I hope—and I have not yet met one who believes that being an MP should be anything other than a full-time commitment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) said, when hon. Members say that having a second job somehow connects them to the outside world, what they generally mean—I am not talking about everyone—is a top, well-paid job. Not a single MP has recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests a second job as a manual worker, a hospital porter, a cleaner or a call centre worker.

Today’s motion deals with remunerated directorships and consultancies. Beyond those activities, the motion talks about regulating other sources of income. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North has announced that we are considering a cap on other forms of outside income, such as earnings from journalism or media appearances, that would apply to all parties. An hon. Member might belong to a profession—normally we talk about lawyers, doctors or perhaps dentists—and need to retain their professional qualifications, but I remind the House that a gas fitter also needs to do so many hours a year to retain his CORGI certificate and an electrician needs to keep in touch with the regulations of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Nothing we are proposing would prevent such a thing.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s exception. I ought to be a gas fitter; I would be better off financially than I am in my current profession. He seems fixated on the paid part. Many Members have jobs on boards and organisations that are unpaid but which occupy the same amount of time and effort as those that are paid. Is his problem with the paid part?

[Jon Trickett]

I think the hon. Gentleman has been persuaded by my argument and might decide to join us in the Division Lobby. I hope others do, too, because, on this question of fiduciary duty, if an MP is remunerated, sometimes very substantially, it will create the perception that they might be tempted to calculate the impact of a particular proposal on that income before deciding how to vote. I do not suggest that any MP has ever done such a thing, but in the public mind, that is a widespread view. If we cannot agree this afternoon, Government Members should at least reflect on that.

MPs’ other activities, including remunerated activities, can be taken into account in any new rules we might agree. For the vast majority of MPs, our proposals should be very simple and make no real changes to how they go about their work. Without robust regulation, however, the perception will continue that politics works for a tiny closed circle of people at the top of our society, but not for the millions of hard-working people who play by the rules yet find it increasingly hard to get by, and that brings me to the kernel of my argument. Millions of people play by the rules, but feel that they are getting a really rough deal, while also believing that there is a different set of rules for others, particularly those at the top. We politicians must take account of that public mood. It is time we stepped up to the mark. Precisely because it is we who set the rules, the rules have to apply to us above all.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jon Trickett]

No, I have almost finished and others want to speak.

Every single one of us feels great pride whenever we enter or leave the Chamber, and we all believe that if politics works properly, we can make our world a better place.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that there is something requiring a remedy, but he keeps telling the House that the problem has not occurred. Does he know of any circumstances in which the problem he purports to be trying to solve has actually arisen?

[Jon Trickett]

As I have said many times, the problem is the public perception that when an MP is earning several hundred thousands of pounds a year from a third-party commercial operation, they will take that into account when making a decision. I do not allege that any MP has so behaved, but the public believe—[Interruption.] Government Members can protest, but they will know, assuming they knock on doors at election time—perhaps they do not—what people say about us.

Working as an MP is the highest honour a democracy can bestow on us, so there should be no doubt in the public’s mind that we are placing every ounce of our intelligence, energy and loyalty at the service of the common good, not being diverted into defending our own private personal interests. For that reason, I hope the House can have a sensible debate, not a finger-pointing one, and even at this late stage support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

I do not think that is actually right, because the office of recorder was not included in the exemptions in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which, of course, was passed by the previous Labour Government. I make no apology for that, because I believe that individual—

[Jon Trickett]

Separation of powers.

[Mr Buckland]

I hear the words “separation of powers”, but we do not have an American system, and nor should we have. If we follow that to its logical conclusion, we turn ourselves into something not at all in keeping with the understood and learned traditions of the British constitution. It can be a good thing that several colleagues in this place have the sort of experience that I have, although I would be the last person to say that we want an identikit House full of lawyers. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) made a powerful speech about his medical practice, so people’s experience in many walks of life enhances our debates.

If the spasm of emotion that underlies what we hear from Labour Members is taken to its logical conclusion, the House will be diminished. Their proposal would not enhance the quality of the legislation that we pass. It would only make the public look at us once again as a rather odd set of individuals of diminishing relevance who contribute less and less to the public life of this country, so we should oppose the motion.

Lobbying

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the absence of a Bill to provide for a statutory register of lobbyists in the Queen’s Speech; expresses its concern at the damage which may be inflicted on the reputation of the House in the absence of statutory regulation; and calls on the Government to immediately begin cross-party negotiations with a view to introducing a Bill before the summer recess, which would provide for the creation of a register for all professional lobbyists, with a clear code of conduct which is backed by sanctions in the event of egregious breaches of the code.

Let me start by entirely accepting that lobbying is a normal part—in fact, an essential part—of an active democracy, and that includes commercial lobbying. However, it has been clear for some time that the professional sector of the industry needs to be properly regulated. The Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, said that lobbying is

“an issue that crosses party lines and has tainted our politics for too long”

and that it is

“an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money.”

We agree with him.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

rose—

[Jon Trickett]

I will give way, but not yet.

The subject of today’s debate could not be more important for the reputation of the House of Commons, for every single right hon. and hon. Member knows in their heart of hearts that the perceived integrity of politicians is at an all-time low. The Prime Minister’s prediction that lobbying was the

“next big scandal waiting to happen”

has sadly proved to be all too correct. [Interruption.] It may be one of the few things he did get right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) says. Knowing that this was going to happen, we ought to have moved rigorously and rapidly to ensure that our democracy emerged cleaner and with a higher reputation than it currently has.

If we can, we ought to handle these matters in a non-partisan manner. It is therefore with some regret that we raise lobbying reform on an Opposition day, which is usually a political knockabout. It is particularly disappointing because it appeared that a cross-party consensus had begun to emerge that something needed to be done. In fact, by the time the coalition agreement had been signed, all three main parties had agreed to legislation and to the creation of a statutory register, but that was more than three years ago. Unfortunately, all the Government have done since then is to have a long, slow consultation followed by a White Paper, and then another long, slow consultation.

When the reshuffle took place in September 2012, formal responsibility for lobbying reform had been totally removed from ministerial responsibilities. The Government simply forgot about lobbying reform.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jon Trickett]

I will give way in a moment.

After the reshuffle, not a single Minister was left with a formal duty to bring forward the reform to which the Government had committed themselves. When we called this Opposition debate, we could therefore have had a sweepstake in the office on which Minister would speak on behalf of the Government, because none of them had formal responsibility for lobbying after the reshuffle. At the top of our guess list was the Deputy Prime Minister, but he was not too keen. In fact, he is nowhere to be seen this afternoon. We then thought that it might be my opposite number, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, because that is where the Bill is supposedly being drafted. He is nowhere to be seen either. We then thought that it would have to be the Minister for political and constitutional reform, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith). She is in the Chamber, but I see that she will not be speaking. None of the above will be responding. Very unusually, the Leader of the House will be speaking on this Opposition day. It seems that he was the last one standing when the music stopped.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Getting back to the subject of the debate, which is lobbying, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not right for parliamentary passes to be given to lobbyists?

[Jon Trickett]

The funding of political parties is being discussed—[Interruption.] Let me come to the point. That matter is being discussed in another place on a cross-party basis. Financial relationships between political parties and lobbyists clearly ought to be a matter for regulation. I believe that financial relationships between individual Members of Parliament and lobbyists should be outlawed, but I will come to that point in a minute.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

I chair the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which has looked into this matter at length. It must surely be of concern to all parliamentarians and to Members from all parts of the House that the Government have failed to respond to a report that was published almost a year ago. Rather than legislate in haste, should we not look at this matter in a parliamentary way, with pre-legislative scrutiny and a proper response to a Select Committee that was elected by Members from all parts of the House?

[Jon Trickett]

I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and all the members of his Select Committee. They have produced important recommendations. It would be helpful if we had sight of the Bill that it appears will emerge in due course, so that there could be pre-legislative scrutiny. It is time that we saw some progress on this matter.

I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House will speak this afternoon because, although he is not listening to me, he is a decent parliamentarian. His duty as the Leader of the House is to protect all hon. Members, as well as the reputation of the House as a whole. I hope he will drive through the necessary process of lobbying reform.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. With all deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the Public Administration Committee published a report several years ago in the previous Parliament recommending a register of lobbyists. Also in the previous Parliament, I tabled an early-day motion that received more than 120 signatures from all parts of the House. The Government cannot forget these things.

[Jon Trickett]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There has been pressure for something to be done on lobbying for many years.

In the three years since the coalition agreement was signed, we have had nothing but delay, obfuscation and prevarication, and the Government are at it again today. The Government’s amendment does not clearly indicate that they will produce a lobbying Bill, and that is shabby politics.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

rose—

[Jon Trickett]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but when he rises to his feet I invite him to say whether a lobbying Bill should be introduced, without any further obfuscation or prevarication of the type we have seen in the past three years—yes or no?

[James Morris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention. He talks about obfuscation and delay, but I happen to remember that there was a Labour Government for 13 years. Will he tell me what happened to the idea of a lobbying register in those 13 years?

[Jon Trickett]

The hon. Gentleman would have a powerful argument about the previous Administration but for the fact that throughout the whole of that period the Conservative party argued for a voluntary register. Even as late as September 2009, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), who became my opposite number, was arguing in the trade press that there should be a voluntary register. In March 2010, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the deputy leader of our party, said that we had tried a voluntary register but it did not work, so we now needed to move towards legislation. In its manifesto, the Labour party clearly committed itself to a statutory register, but what did the Conservative party manifesto say? It said that the Conservative party wanted to persevere with a voluntary register. For the whole of the 13 years we were in office, it is clear that the Conservatives were pressing us not to legislate, and the fact is that in the past three years they have done nothing whatever to legislate.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Of course, what he is telling the House is that the Labour Government did nothing for 13 years. Two months before the general election, when they no longer expecting to be in power, they said that they might do something in the future. He said that the Government’s amendment was not clear about our commitment, but it

“welcomes the Government’s commitment to bring forward legislation before the summer recess”—

[Mr Lansley]

I am about to say when: before this summer recess. For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman that is 18 July, not next summer recess:

“before the summer recess to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists”

within three years. That was in the coalition Government’s programme. His Government did not do anything.

[Jon Trickett]

The amendment goes on to talk about all kinds of other extraneous matters. The truth is that the Government are seeking to obscure the nature of the debate that we need to have this afternoon. This debate is about lobbying reform. Will there or will there not be a lobbying Bill that will create a serious register with a code of conduct?

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He earlier quoted the Prime Minister on the “next big scandal”. Does he agree that it will be a scandal with planning permission, for both Government and Parliament, if we fail to legislate and to legislate robustly—not a light-touch statutory register, but robust legislation?

[Jon Trickett]

My hon. Friend makes an important point and does so more succinctly than I have been doing.

The Government’s strategy has been clear: to kick the whole issue into the long grass for as long as possible and then to try to confuse and obscure the true issues. Only last month, we had the Queen’s Speech in which there was no mention of lobbying reform. It is only now, because of recent unfavourable headlines, that my opposite number finally said that he wanted to see some lobbying reform. We shall have a look later at what sort of lobbying reform that might be.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jon Trickett]

I will, but will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether there will be a lobbying Bill before the summer recess?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

If the hon. Gentleman took the trouble to read Hansard, he would have noticed that a lobbying Bill was introduced yesterday, so there is already a lobbying Bill on the Order Paper from his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). However, if this issue was so pressing at the time of the Queen’s Speech, why did the Labour party not raise it then or table an amendment to that effect? Or has it just jumped on a bandwagon?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett]

If there are any more interventions of that poor quality, I will not take any more.

I wrote an article in The Guardian in January 2012, using those three words: delay, prevarication and so on. It is simply not good enough to pretend that we have not been demanding some form of legislation for at least three years. The truth is that the Government have delayed and even this afternoon, as we shall see, they are attempting to obfuscate the true issues. A Bill was introduced yesterday but it was in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), a Member on this side of the House.

I hoped—obviously it was a vain hope—that this could be a non-partisan debate. Our reputation as a political class is now at an all-time low. Lobbyists needs to be made to operate in the clear light of day, so that every citizen can see and know how and why decisions are taken. They also need to see how much is being spent behind the scenes by commercial lobbyists to influence decision makers, and they need to see how that money is being spent. Nothing less will do. Let me illustrate the point with a case.

I said that I would not be too partisan so I will not name the individual. Someone may work out who it is; some might be quicker than others. I shall refer to an Australian gentleman. In an Ashes summer, one would have thought that the Government would be on the British side rather than that of the Australians. He shall be nameless, but he is a highly paid adviser to the Prime Minister. Reportedly, he had discussions at Chequers prior to the Queen’s Speech with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. [Hon. Members: “Patricia Hewitt?”] I do not think that she was a gentleman, although she was many things.

When the Queen’s Speech was delivered, it transpired that the Government had dropped all reference not only to lobbying legislation but to plain tobacco packaging and minimum alcohol pricing, all of which had been promised. The problem arises when the public find out that this very same Australian is also and at the same time the chairman and managing director of an active lobbying company with an office here in London. The company has actively lobbied in Australia against plain tobacco packaging and against minimum alcohol pricing.

I do not wish to accuse this gentleman of having behaved with any impropriety. Arguably—I do not know—he may have excused himself from the discussions with the Prime Minister at Chequers when the matter of a lobbying register came up. He might also have left the room when tobacco packaging was mentioned and done so once more when alcohol pricing was discussed. I do not know. But his company failed to register itself on the voluntary register of lobbyists in Australia and his company is not on the voluntary register in the UK. Therefore, we have no idea who his clients are, what their objectives are or how much money is being paid.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I am quite quick on the uptake and I have an inkling as to who the hon. Gentleman may be talking about, but will he make it clear that this person is a party employee, not a Government employee, and that the arrangements are very similar to those of Charlie Whelan, Deborah Mattinson, Derek Draper and Alastair Campbell and that it would be duplicitous to say that they are in any way different?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett]

I quoted the Prime Minister at the beginning of my speech. He said that this is a problem that affects all parties and has to be resolved by all parties. I take that point entirely.

Referring back to the gentleman I am talking about, if there were a statutory register in place—as there would have been if Labour had won the last election—we would undoubtedly know who was lobbying on behalf of whom, how much was being spent and on behalf of which clients.

[Mark Durkan]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that experiences during the banking crisis, with the charity sector and in other areas have taught us that there is a key difference between registration and regulation and that proposals that centre only on registration do not give us what we need?

[Jon Trickett]

That brings me to my next point. The Prime Minister said that sunlight is the best disinfectant and I agree, but I do not believe that the proposals mentioned in the amendment match up to the requirements. Let me explain why. There are three reasons. First, it was drawn in such a way as to cover only the narrowest section of third-party lobbyists, which is less than a quarter of the whole industry. What is the point of having a register of professional lobbyists that will not register all professional lobbyists? Secondly, there is no sign of the Government including in the Bill—it is certainly not in the White Paper—a code of conduct that would regulate the register. Even the voluntary code that covers the more ethical part of the industry already has a code of conduct. Why would we want to have a lower statutory threshold than that which the more ethical section of the industry already imposes on itself and its own members?

My third objection to the consultation, as the Government call it, is this: given that the Government are not proposing a code of conduct, there can be no sanctions applied against lobbyists who breach the code. Again, this is a lower standard than the industry’s existing codes. At the moment, any lobbyist working within the current ethical voluntary register is forbidden to engage in any improper financial relationship with any parliamentarian, which brings us to the bones of the issue.

If we have a voluntary register and someone breaches the code by having such a relationship with a parliamentarian, they will be removed from the register and will be unable to practise as a lobbyist. That should be written into legislation, but it is not envisaged in the White Paper.

The White Paper was

“possibly one of the most shoddy documents I have ever seen government produce.”

That is not my view, but that of a practising, professional lobbyist. Francis Ingham, director general of the Public Relations Consultants Association, said of the White Paper that the Government’s proposals were “unfit for purpose”.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

The code of conduct, which my hon. Friend mentions, is habitually broken. For example—he mentioned this sort of contravention—the code says that parliamentarians should not be paid by lobbying companies that are signed up to the code, yet many Members at the other end of the corridor are directors of lobbying firms and so presumably are in receipt of payments. That breaks the code of conduct, but nobody does anything about it.

[Jon Trickett]

The problem is that many companies and lobbyists—the Australian I mentioned, for example—do not participate even in the voluntary code, which is why there must be statutory provision.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jon Trickett]

I will not take any more interventions, because I want to make some progress and other people want to speak.

It is not difficult to define what the House should do to regulate the industry—I agree that the point is to regulate as well as to register, as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said—and it need not be burdensome for professional lobbyists. In fact, it takes about 20 minutes to provide the necessary information on the relevant form—I have tried it myself. The Bill should do four things. It should create a clear definition of professional lobbying; a statutory register of all those who lobby professionally; a clear code of conduct that forbids inappropriate financial relations between lobbyists and parliamentarians; and a strong system of sanctions when the code is breached.

All that is detail, however. We are simply asking for a commitment from the Government to agree to cross-party talks—in fact, that is really all our motion asks for—not as an excuse for failing to act, but as a prelude to rapid action to bring this matter into proper order. I hope that the Government’s amendment to the motion is not a signal that they intend to conflate a series of irrelevant issues in order to obfuscate further and therefore once more evade the central question before us this afternoon, which is: how are we going to reform and then regulate the lobbying industry? The noble Lord Wallace, who speaks for the Cabinet Office in another place, said that the Government did not intend to conflate these matters. I hope he is correct, but I fear he is not.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but does he agree that if we are genuinely to restore public trust in politics, the statutory register of lobbyists has to be the very minimum, and that we must do far more to tackle the excessive influence of corporate money and vested interests and to address things such as the invisible secondments of people from industry right into the centre of policy making here in Whitehall?

[Jon Trickett]

I will be speaking on other matters, as will other Labour spokespeople in due course, but the hon. Lady is right that we have to take big money out of politics across the board. We have proposals to do that, and have made some difficult recommendations on trade unions, if anyone is interested. It is the Government who are stalling the negotiations on party funding.

We need a lobbying Bill that will begin the process of cleaning up our politics and create a level playing field for all the professional lobbyists who behave ethically but are constantly undermined by a few who do not play by the rules. Nothing less will do. The Leader of the House must say whether he will continue to speak for the closed circle, the tiny elite, that seems to run our country and on whose behalf many professional lobbyists often work, or whether he will speak on behalf of the many by placing the professional lobbying industry on a proper footing.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end and add:

“notes the failure of the previous administration to implement a statutory register of lobbyists for 13 years; welcomes the Coalition Agreement commitment to regulate lobbying through a statutory register; notes the Government’s consultation paper on Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists; welcomes the Government’s commitment to bring forward legislation before the summer recess to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists, as part of a broad package of measures to tighten the rules on how third parties can influence the UK’s political system; and looks forward to welcoming reforms that ensure that the activities of outside organisations who seek to influence the political process are transparent, accountable and properly regulated.”

I move the amendment on behalf of the Government both as Leader of the House, in which capacity I seek to protect and promote the reputation of the House, which the motion claims might have been damaged—I am sorry that my being here disappoints the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who wanted other Ministers to be here, but I am pleased to be here, and am here as a volunteer, not a pressed man—and as a Cabinet Minister who, with ministerial colleagues, has policy responsibilities in this regard. I, along with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who has responsibility for political and constitutional reform, and the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), will take responsibility for the forthcoming Bill, which, as the amendment makes clear, we have committed to introduce before the summer recess. It will be a Bill to implement our coalition programme commitment to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists and to promote transparency and an improved regulatory framework for the influence of third parties in the political system.

[Jon Trickett]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene already. Perhaps he can add some clarity to his speech.

[Jon Trickett]

We might be able to foreshorten the debate, if the Leader of the House will say whether it will be a lobbying Bill.

[Mr Lansley]

It will introduce a statutory register on lobbyists. I listened to the hon. Gentleman’s speech—honestly, I did—but I regret that it sank further and further into the quicksands of confused thinking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman should talk to his own Front-Bench team. [Interruption.] I am just answering his question. The point is that it will introduce a statutory register of lobbyists, and in that sense it is a regulatory process. I will explain our approach later.

Did the hon. Member for Hemsworth really think it was sensible to have this debate just weeks before publication of the Bill? What was he thinking?

[Jon Trickett]

You’re not going to have a lobbying Bill.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, we are. Its purpose will be to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists, which is what we said in the coalition programme we would do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

In a moment.

The latest scandal forced the Government into action, but their proposals that we have heard about so far are full of holes. It appears that they will cover only a narrow section of third-party lobbyists, but that is simply not good enough. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, only about 100 organisations would be covered, yet the UK Public Affairs Council defines lobbying as

“in a professional capacity, attempting to influence, or advising those who wish to influence, the UK Government, Parliament”—

and so on.

[Jon Trickett]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Third-party lobbyists that operate legitimately and ethically feel threatened by the idea that the Government will leave open an enormous barn door for in-house lobbyists. There will be a devastating impact on third-party companies if their client organisations begin to hide away what they were doing by taking on more lobbyists in house. Will she comment on that point?

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point about who should be included on the register and the importance of getting the definitions right. Many people have referred to lobbying by constituents, and any constituent has an absolute right of access to their Member of Parliament. My constituents are not slow about making their views heard, as I suspect is true of those of other hon. Members, but that is different from commercial lobbying, so the legislation must make that clear.

We have to deal with those who are directly employed lobbyists, but they would be allowed to carry on as before under the Government’s plans. What would happen to big firms such as Capita, Grant Thornton and PricewaterhouseCoopers that operate across government in many ways, but include lobbying among their functions? Legislation cannot work unless a code of conduct is attached to it. Parts of the industry already have a voluntary code, but without a code of conduct, there is no real point of having a register, because one then cannot deal with breaches of ethics, including by removing people from the register. Without full publication of details and meetings, lobbying will still be shrouded in secrecy because people will not know what is going on.