Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Allen
I will not answer my hon. Friend’s question because I would incur your wrath, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, were we able to debate under a proper programme motion, my hon. Friend could make those important points at some length.
Leaving aside the Electoral Commission, the bodies that will be hurt most by any legislation of this sort were also not consulted. It takes a truly heroic effort in this place to get 10,000-odd charities up in arms. Members have been contacted by many such organisations over the past weeks and months, and I am sure that even today they will have received lengthy protests from key organisations such as the Royal British Legion and Oxfam who are saying, “We’ve not had our say. We feel we’re being railroaded.” It is not the role of Parliament to push people and push legislation through without a proper case being made by the Government.
Part 2 is the most sensitive part of the Bill, and if this programme motion is passed we may come to it tomorrow, but most of the bodies and people who will be most affected by it feel that the whole of part 2 should be withdrawn. If there had been a Cabinet reshuffle at the higher levels perhaps an incoming Leader of the House might have said, “I’m blowed if I’m going to be hung with this for the next two months,” and might have scrapped it. We are going to soldier on and try to make the best of it, however, but we can only make the best of it if we have the time to scrutinise properly some of the Bill’s key issues.
People outside this House do not want us to play games. This is the first time in my political life that I have asked colleagues not to support a programme motion. I am generally a great advocate of programme motions, but I oppose this programme motion because of what charity after charity, and voluntary sector organisation after voluntary sector organisation, and third sector organisation after third sector organisation, are saying. Civil Society says in its briefing about the programming:
“There has been a lack of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation with organisations that might be affected by the change which is in stark opposition to the supposed purpose of the Bill which is to increase transparency and oversight”,
not reduce it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I have been very lenient, but we are in danger of repeating arguments by bringing different organisations into the discussion. I understand the frustration that the Chair of the Select Committee feels, but he will understand that our debate is purely about the timetabling and nothing else; it is not about the detail of what may or may not come.
Mr Allen
I strongly support your view, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will not repeat anything, and will instead move on to the very long list of brand new points that I can put before the House.
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations makes a completely new point about the programming:
“We also have concerns about the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny and the lack of consultation with organisations that might be affected by the changes in order to ensure they are clear and workable. Government is committed”
—apparently—
“to the national Compact which states that ‘where it is appropriate, and enables meaningful engagement, conduct 12-week formal written consultations, with clear explanations and rationale for any shorter time-frames’”.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know I am quite mature in years, but my hearing is still fairly acute and I think we are hearing about the programme of the Government. About 15 minutes have passed since we last heard about the programming of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I shall repeat what I just said to Mr Allen: we need to get to the point. This debate is about the programme motion. I have allowed a little leeway, and he has used that leeway. I think he is now in danger of taking advantage of the Chamber, and I am sure he is about to finish.
Mr Allen
Since, sadly, I am accusing the Government of taking advantage of this Chamber, it is incumbent upon me not to do so, but I am not talking about the Government’s programme; I am instead talking about the programme motion, by which I mean the timetabling.
This timetable is an insult to those who work day and night in charities; it is an insult to Members of this House who are receiving representations about what is a very important matter but are unable to voice them in this Chamber; and—above all, perhaps—it is an insult to our legislative colleagues in the second Chamber who expect us to send them a Bill in halfway-decent repair.
Speaking for my Select Committee, which has members from parties on both sides of the House, we have worked incredibly hard to try to fulfil our role for this House and for Parliament. Unless we are allowed to debate these issues properly and fully, I will ask my colleagues to vote against the programme motion.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker
May I say to the Leader of the House that I did not realise that Mr Cash wished to come in? I call Mr Cash.
Mr Cash
I am sorry for inhibiting my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for a short moment.
I just want to endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said and draw attention to the real reasons why this matter is so important. I have already made the point that the proposal would simply create confusion and the extreme likelihood that there would be interpretations by the courts as a result of a difference of language between what is contained in schedule 1 and the wording of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. It is best left alone; that was the essence of what the Lord Chief Justice said.
As someone who served on the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, I want to make something absolutely clear. Curiously enough, the word privilege is almost a misnomer. It is not a privilege; it is a necessity. I would say that of any Member of this House. We cannot have freedom of speech to protect our constituents without having the right to be able to say whatever needs to be said in this House to protect them. That is whether in relation to HS2, on which I share the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan)—I am totally against it—or anything else. The absolute necessity for maintaining the right of an MP to speak within the framework of the rules of the House must not be interfered with by any court or any outside agency. We have to have that right as that is the essence of our democracy.
What we are really discussing here, apart from the very important question—I concede that it is important—of not getting into a conflict with the courts or having differences of emphasis or wording that could give rise to interpretations, is that it is absolutely essential to remember that these issues are for the benefit of our constituents and the national interest.
In 1999 the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege —our predecessor committee—said:
“Parliament makes the law and raises taxes. It is also the place where ministers are called to account by representatives of the whole nation for their decisions and their expenditure of public money. Grievances great and small can be aired regardless of the power or wealth of those criticised.
In order to carry out these public duties”—
I repeat the word “public”—
“without fear or favour, parliament and its members and officers need certain rights and immunities. Parliament needs the right to regulate its own affairs free from intervention by the government or the courts. Members need to be able to speak freely, uninhibited by possible defamation claims.”
The Irish Government argued recently at the European Court of Human Rights that
“parliamentary immunity has developed throughout the world not as a constraint upon the rights of the citizen but as a fundamental liberty.”
I could enlarge on this but I do not need to do so.
Mr Cash
That is the very point I am seeking to make. I would also point out that a number of other countries have got themselves into serious turmoil and trouble where the right of the people to speak freely is inessential and incidental to the manner in which their constitution is construed. In many countries, whether dictatorships or quasi-democracies, the inhibitions on the freedom of their members of parliament to speak as they must on behalf of the national interest or on behalf of their constituents is constrained by a lot of activities which, in effect, put them in fear. It is precisely because this House as a whole ensures, through its own regulation of the behaviour of Members, that that freedom is maintained, that we can guarantee that we can serve our constituents in the national interest.
That is all I need to say, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I need to say something, just to help you, because obviously I know that you want to discuss the new clause and do not want to drift into the wider arena. I am sure you will have appreciated me trying to help you with that.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Tagged on to this debate is a report by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which I chair, that we published on the day of the Bill’s Second Reading. It was all a bit of a hurry because of the Government’s haste to get these provisions into Parliament. On 18 July I wrote to the Leader of the House with some major concerns that we had about the Bill’s implications for Members of Parliament and the consequential implications for the codes of conduct—our own rules in relation to Members’ activities.
The House of Commons has long been concerned about lobbying. As early as 1695, the House resolved:
“The Offer of any Money, or other Advantage, to any Member of Parliament, for the promoting of any Matter whatsoever, depending, or to be transacted, in Parliament, is a high Crime and Misdemeanour, and tends to the Subversion of the Constitution.”
Successive resolutions have restricted what Members are permitted to do. The current code of conduct states:
“No Member shall act as a paid advocate in any proceedings of the House.”
Indeed, the “Guide to the Rules relating to the Code of Conduct of Members” makes it clear that prohibition on advocacy is not limited to proceedings in the House or approaches to Ministers but extends to approaches to colleagues and to any servants of the Crown. Consultant lobbying is usually understood to consist of the acceptance of money in direct return for lobbying activity. Under the code of conduct as currently written, this would almost certainly be a breach of the advocacy rule. We noted that the requirements for the registration of Members’ financial interests are far more detailed than the Bill’s requirements for entries in the register of consultant lobbyists. There was grave concern that had it remained as first published, there would have been major conflict between Members of this House and organisations outside.
We recognised that although Members are permitted to have outside interests, a Member who carried out consultant lobbying would be breaking the current rules of conduct of the House. None the less, we also recognised that that could change if the House changed its rules to permit such activity, though we considered that to be extremely unlikely. If that were the case, Members would then not be immune from the general, nor should they be. If the advocacy rule were ever rescinded, a Member who acted as a consultant lobbyist should be subject to the same rules as any other such lobbyist.
We had to draw up the report very quickly because of the timetable that we have had for the Bill. We brought up two major concerns in our conclusion. First, we said:
“In our view, the difficulties about the way in which the legislation applies to Members of Parliament would be swept away if paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 was removed.”
The Government’s amendment 29 does that, I am pleased to say. As has been clearly pointed out in the debate, under the paragraph I would be potentially restricted to lobbying the Secretary of State or a senior civil servant only on the basis of a constituent having contacted me about an issue. That would be nonsensical. It would mean that to be able to do the work that I have been doing on public health for many years in this Chamber, I would first have to get a constituent to write to me about it. It could also affect my ability to go to a recognised charity that is concerned about public health issues and work with it in the hope of getting more effective legislation. We all do that, as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) said.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 6—Duty to report—
‘The Registrar will report annually to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons on the operation of the Register.’.
Amendment 84, page 54, line 15, after ‘satisfied’, insert ‘after consultation with the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons’.
Government amendment 31.
Amendment 85, page 3, line 7, leave out from ‘business’ to end of line 8.
Amendment 86, page 3, line 15, at end insert—
‘(h) the name of the employer and the address of employer‘s business; and
(i) the names of members of staff employed by the person registered.’.
Government amendments 17 and 18.
Amendment 87, page 3, line 21, at end insert—
‘(c) the approximate value of the registered person’s spending on their lobbying activities for each quarter.’.
Government amendments 19 and 20.
Amendment 89, page 3, line 37, after ‘client information’, insert ‘and spending on lobbying’.
Government amendments 21 and 22.
Amendment 100, page 3, line 47, at end add—
‘(c) if the registered person engaged in lobbying in the quarter in return for payment (whether or not the payment has been received), the purpose and subject matter of the lobbying services provided by the registered person; and
(d) if the registered person received payment in the quarter to engage in lobbying (whether or not the lobbying has been done) the purpose and subject matter of the lobbying services provided by the registered person.’.
Amendment 90, page 4, line 7, at end insert—
‘(7) Spending on lobbying for each quarter is the approximate value of the amount a registered person spends on their lobbying activity for each quarter.’.
Government amendments 23 and 24.
Amendment 92, page 4, line 40, after ‘appropriate’, insert ‘including in written form’.
Amendment 93, page 5, line 26, leave out Clause 10.
Government amendment 25.
Amendment 94, page 6, line 28, after ‘incomplete’, insert ‘or misleading’.
Amendment 95, page 6, line 36, after ‘incomplete’, insert ‘or misleading’.
Amendment 96, page 6, line 42, after ‘incomplete’, insert ‘or misleading’.
Government amendments 26 and 27.
Mr Thomas
Reasonable though the Leader of the House was about the previous set of amendments, he will have to reach unprecedented oratorical heights for the Opposition not to press new clause 4 to a vote. The new clause seeks to establish a code of conduct that would help establish standards of behaviour for consultant lobbyists. Such codes exist already in a number of other countries that have tough lobbying regulations—Canada and Australia, for example, both have codes of conduct to which registered lobbyists must adhere. Indeed, this House’s Political and Constitutional Reform Committee also recommended a statutory code of conduct.
There was some debate in Committee about the elements of a possible code of conduct, and that point bears dwelling on and expanding a little. Surely, top of the list of standards in a code of conduct should be the requirement that lobbyists and their clients tell the truth to those they meet. Another element that might be worthy of inclusion in the code is that lobbyists must be open about who their clients are. Members of the House, Ministers and permanent secretaries are entitled to know who is lobbying them and for what purpose. Surely there should be a requirement that lobbyists advise their clients if they are about to commit illegal or unethical acts.
It is not clear to Labour Members—and, I suspect, to other Members—why Ministers do not want such basic principles of good behaviour enshrined in a code of conduct. In Committee, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), suggested:
“The experience of regulators in other jurisdictions clearly shows that statutory codes of conduct for lobbying can be unworkable and unenforceable.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 786.]
Sadly, she did not feel able to give the Committee any more information than that bald statement. If it remains the Government’s position that they do not support a code of conduct, it would be helpful for the House, those in the other place and those who watch our proceedings if they set out clearly the international examples that led them to the conclusion that statutory codes of conduct are unworkable and unenforceable.
If there is no code of conduct, we will be in the rather odd position in which the registrar can punish lateness in providing or submitting information, but cannot punish lobbyists who deliberately hide who they are working for from those they are lobbying. Before being drawn up, a code of conduct would need to be properly consulted on with all relevant stakeholders, including the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I accept there are already a number of voluntary codes of conduct in the lobbying industry, some of which are extremely comprehensive. Sadly, however, not every lobbyist is a member of one or other of those voluntary codes.
Gavin Devine, chief executive of MHP Communications, one of the bigger lobbying firms, noted there is a risk that simply securing a place on the register might enable lobbyists to imply they had a kitemark or some sort of endorsement, without having to operate to particular standards. Other evidence presented to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee suggested there might be an economic issue for some who decide to register and pay the registration fee, but do not want to pay any more for the cost of being a consultant lobbyist, and therefore would no longer be part of a voluntary code of conduct.
Surely, there is a risk that, once registered, a lobbyist will simply decide not to bother with any of the voluntary codes of conduct. On 9 September, the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) tried to argue, interestingly, that peer pressure would drive lobbyists to adhere to a voluntary code of conduct. Unfortunately, given that there are several voluntary codes across the industry, that would risk having different standards. Having one clear basic code of conduct would offer clarity about the minimum standards that lobbyists should meet, avoid confusion about which voluntary register was the best one and offer clarity to the House and the Government about the standards required of those who seek to lobby us. A code of conduct might also help to regulate those who want to lobby the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Greater London Assembly or the National Assembly for Wales, were they to be included in the code of conduct.
One voluntary code that bears looking at is that produced by the Association of Professional Political Consultants. Why do not Ministers think that its 18 elements should be standardised across the industry? Item 2 states:
“Political consultants must act with honesty towards clients and the institutions of government.”
Surely, we all want to see consultant lobbyists acting with honesty towards clients and the institutions of government. Why do the Leader of the House and his colleagues in government think that such a provision should not be written into a code of conduct and that every consultant lobbyist should have to abide by that most basic of standards?
The APPC code also states that lobbyists
“must use reasonable endeavours to satisfy themselves of the truth and accuracy of all statements made or information provided to clients or by or on behalf of clients to institutions of government.”
Again, that seeks to continue the principle of truthfulness among those who seek to lobby Parliament and the institutions of government. Why should there not be such a reasonable expectation that when we are told something, it is truthful and accurate? It is not clear, certainly among the Opposition, why Ministers think that such basic standards should not be required of all those who lobby.
The APPC code also makes it clear that those who sign it should be
“open in disclosing the identity of their clients and must not misrepresent their interests.”
Again, I ask the Leader of the House why such a basic standard for the lobbying industry should not be enshrined in a code of conduct. Why should everyone who seeks to lobby us not be required to meet that most basic of standards?
Another provision that might be included in a code is the requirement that lobbyists do not make misleading, exaggerated or extravagant claims to clients. Anyone who has followed the unfortunate publicity that some lobbyists have generated will be aware that some have made exaggerated claims for their influence on the Government or Members of Parliament. Again, a basic requirement that lobbyists should not make misleading, exaggerated or extravagant claims would surely help to protect those who use the services of the lobbying industry. Why do Ministers not think that clients should be protected from such basic bad behaviour by a would-be lobbyist and therefore have it written into a code of conduct?
Interestingly, the APPC code deals with payments and offers of entertainment and mementoes. It makes it clear that
“political consultants must not offer or give, or cause a client to offer or give, any financial or other incentive to”
somebody in government
“that could be construed in any way as a bribe or solicitation of favour”
Again, that must be a basic standard we would want all consultant lobbyists to abide by. If one shares that view, it should be written into a code of conduct, so that all consultant lobbyists have to abide by it, not just those who, in this case, choose to be members of the APPC.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. Before the hon. Lady replies to that point, may I suggest that she will want to return to the subject of audit certification?
Yasmin Qureshi
I will come to that, Sir Edward. The need for certification will cause financial harm to the unions, and we do not need it. It will not deal with the mischief that the legislation on lobbying was supposed to address. All it will do is impose an unfair financial burden on the trade unions, which rely on the subscriptions of ordinary members.
Derisory comments are constantly being made about the trade unions, but it is important to remind ourselves what they are arguing for. I get letters from unions lobbying me. For example, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers contacted me when there was talk of Sunday working during the Olympics. I also get letters from trade unions about pension rights, maternity rights, the minimum wage, health and safety, living conditions and better terms and conditions. What is there to be ashamed of about those things? What is wrong with a body arguing for those things?
Why are Conservative Members always having a go at the unions? They make it sound as though the unions are some kind of sinister organisations, but they are not. They are full of ordinary working people, and they have always fought for working people’s rights. The Conservatives should be championing the trade unions, rather than making derisory remarks about them and insulting them in the Chamber. This legislation is a clear example of their vindictive attitude towards the trade unions. The unions do not have a lot of money in the first place, but what they have will now be wasted on this unnecessary bureaucratic burden. The obligation that the Government are proposing will not deal with the mischief that the lobbying Bill is trying to deal with. That mischief relates to big business, to sinister deals and to cash being passed in underhand ways. That is what we are trying to deal with, but the Bill categorically fails on every single level.
This last part of the Bill illustrates the Government’s pure vindictiveness, and it has no purpose. We should all reject it. All Members of Parliament should vote against this Bill, and particularly against part 3. If Members really care about working people, as they all say they do, they should not allow this additional and unnecessary burden to be imposed on the trade unions. It will not deal with the mischief that the Bill was supposed to address.
Mr Binley
I am slightly confused by the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, given what we have heard from many leading trade unionists about the possibility of strikes over the next six months. Does he not recognise that that poses a sizeable danger to the country’s economy, or is he telling me that the strikes will not happen because what the trade union leaders are saying is a sham?
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. I hope the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) will not stray too far down that road, and will return to the subject of the clause and amendments. He has performed very skilfully so far.
John Healey
Indeed so, Sir Edward.
As a former member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the steps, linked to the clause, that any union needs to take before contemplating industrial action are already highly complex. They are legally specified, and they set a number of very high hurdles for any group of trade union members who wish to consider industrial action. As for his general point, it is often the determination of union members to take industrial action if necessary, and as a last resort, that causes employers to see sense, negotiate properly and, in many cases, solve the problems at hand.
Let me sum up the position. The number of days lost to strike action is at a near all-time low. Industrial action is always a last resort. The series of legislative steps that any group of trade union members must take before engaging in lawful industrial action are already highly complex, lengthy and tightly specified in law, but clause 36 will make that specification much tighter, and will make it much more difficult for unions to take such action. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) pointed out, there is no legal right to strike in this country, and any industrial action lays a trade union open to being sued for inducing and encouraging members to breach their employment contracts. It is only the immunity from being sued, which comes from following all the steps specified in existing legislation, that will be made more difficult by the provisions in clause 36.
Too often in recent years, employers—not just large employers such as Balfour Beatty, Serco and London Midland—instead of dealing with the grievance at hand, and instead of consulting, negotiating and discussing the problems that they face with their own employees and dealing with the dispute, have looked for legal ground to try to prevent any industrial action through the law courts. The duty in clause 36 to provide the membership audits and certificates, and the potential investigations on the back of any complaints under the auspices of the certification officer, are likely to make it much easier for employers to find legal grounds and to take legal action to prevent union members from taking proper, legitimate industrial action. Clause 36 will create a mountain of data and paperwork which will be at the fingertips of employers well in advance of any particular risk of industrial action or dispute.
Mr Anderson
That is par for the course in this debate, Mr Sheridan. The Government are trying to stifle debate, and they are doing that by pushing the Bill through Parliament in record time. They do not want to hear the truth. They do not want to hear the facts. There is a thread running through this debate. It is not about the clauses; it is not about the words on the paper; it is about a political fix. The Minister’s party is colluding with the Tory party in an attempt—a direct attempt, as we heard yesterday—to fix the people in this country so that their voices are dumbed down.
The 1992 Act created the office of commissioner for the rights of trade union members, or CROTUM. There was also a Scottish commissioner for the rights of trade union members, or SCROTUM. That is what the debate, and the Bill, are about. It is fitting in this context. That office was set up deliberately to encourage disgruntled trade union members to get out of their unions and undermine them.
The Minister said that I should return to the subject of the clause, and I shall do so now. Let me ask this: why are we here? This debate ought to be driven by the huge public concern that exists in this country about cash for questions, cronyism, dinners at No. 10 and the buying of favours. We ought to be discussing what was revealed yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann): the fact that private individuals pumped £250,000 into his constituency to try to prevent him from becoming Member of Parliament for Bassetlaw. We should be discussing those issues, rather than the minutiae of legislation that is already more than adequate.
As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), 40 million people have been registered on union lists in the last seven years, and there has not been one complaint. The people of this country are not concerned about what certification officers are getting up to; they are concerned about cronyism. They are concerned about the influence that Murdoch has, and the influence that private people have. They are concerned about people such as Asil Nadir and Michael Brown, who are languishing in jail while the Government parties keep money that they stole.
The Temporary Chairman (Jim Sheridan)
Order. I remind the Committee that we must stick to debating clause 37; we seem to be wandering away from it.
Ian Murray
Thank you, Mr Sheridan. I shall certainly try not to wander off topic.
It is worth pondering the question of the compatibility of these provisions with the European convention on human rights. A vast number of organisations, including the well-respected organisation Liberty, have raised that issue. Liberty believes that part 3 should be removed in its entirety, and I could not agree more. It believes the proposals breach article 11 on freedom of assembly and association, which takes us back to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) who was worried about the impact of this part of the Bill on trade union members, and article 8. For many individuals, membership of a trade union is a deeply private choice.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In light of the fact that so many issues could not be debated in Committee, have you had any notice from the Government that they intend to give House more time on Report so that those issues may be debated properly?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have had absolutely no notice of that. However, as he is well aware, it is up to the Government to make the timetable.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. As a matter of process, more than 200 charities and voluntary organisations wrote to the Minister on their anxieties about this Bill. Is it within your power to ensure that those anxieties, and many others that will be expressed in the debates on the various clauses that come before us today, are debated by the Committee? If colleagues from any part of the Committee were to filibuster so that those points were not reached, it would be an act of disrespect to this Parliament and all the charities that are concerned about the issue. Is it in your power to encourage colleagues to keep their remarks within bounds, so that the key clauses can be reached?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
It is not just the Minister who has been inundated with people’s views. That is not a point of order because, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the debate has been guillotined and is time limited. I am sure, however, that hon. Members have taken on board the comments made.
Clause 26
Meaning of “controlled expenditure”
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 47, page 12, line 23, leave out ‘subsections (2) to (4)’ and insert ‘subsection (2)’.’.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 62, page 12, line 24, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
Amendment 46, page 12, line 28, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
Amendment 131, page 12, leave out lines 31 to line 3 on page 13 and insert—
‘“For election purposes” means activity which can reasonably be regarded as intended for the primary purpose of—
(a) promoting or procuring electoral success at any relevant election for—
(i) one or more particular registered parties;
(ii) one or more registered parties who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of such parties; or
(iii) candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of candidates; or
(b) otherwise enhancing the standing—
(i) of any such party of parties; or
(ii) of any such candidates,
with the electorate in connections with future relevant elections (whether imminent or otherwise).’.
Amendment 64, page 12, line 31, leave out ‘or in connection with’.
Amendment 168, page 13, line 30, at end insert—
‘() the amendments made by this Part shall not apply to elections to the Scottish Parliament, unless the Scottish Parliament so resolves.’.
Amendment 169, page 13, line 30, at end insert—
‘() the amendments made by this Part shall not apply to charities registered in the Scottish Charity Register maintained under section 3 of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 in relation to Scotland.’.
Amendment 132, in schedule 3, page 55, line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
‘Any manifesto or other document setting out the third party’s view on the policies of one or more registered parties or of any category of registered parties or candidates.’.
Amendment 133, page 55, line 32, at end add—
‘in connection with an election campaign’.
Amendment 134, page 55, leave out lines 40 to line 4 on page 56.
Amendment 162, page 56, line 15, at end insert—
(c) in respect of staffing costs incurred for election purposes, as defined in section 85(3).’.
Amendment 167, page 56, line 15, at end insert—
‘(c) in respect of the remuneration or allowances payable to any member of the staff (whether permanent or otherwise) of the third party.’.
New clause 4—Charity or non-party campaigning
‘Nothing in Part 2 of this Act shall limit the capacity of a charity or non-party campaigning organisation to comment on public policy in so far as it does not seek to influence the outcome of an election in so doing.’.
New clause 6—Expenditure within third party groups
‘(1) Part 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (controls relating to third party national election campaigns) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 87 insert—
“87A Expenditure within third party groups
(1) For the purposes of this Part, third parties which have formed part of a group of third parties (“a group”), for the purposes of undertaking activities to influence the outcome of an election, have only a duty to account to the regulator for expenditure that the third party has incurred for election purposes, as defined in section 85(3), and not for expenditure by the group or groups of which they have formed part.
(2) Each group shall designate a person or persons responsible for reporting to the regulator expenditure by the group incurred for election purposes.
(3) A donation by a third party to a group for the purposes of undertaking activities to influence the outcome of an election shall count towards the expenditure limits established in section 94 and Schedule 10.”.’.
New clause 9—Impact of Part 2 on elections and referendums in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
‘Within two months of the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, the Electoral Commission and the Minister shall lay a report before both Houses of Parliament containing—
(a) an assessment of the separate and specific impacts of Part 2 of this Act on third-party engagement in elections to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and to the House of Commons in respect of constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and
(b) an assessment of the impact of Part 2 of the Act on referendums held or to be held in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.’.
New clause 10—Assessment of effect of third party campaigning on UK elections
‘(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must set out a report that includes his assessment of the effect that the actions of third party campaigning has had at elections in the UK, which shall include—
(a) an assessment of the impact of third party national election campaigns as regulated by Part IV of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000,
(b) the impact of any other third party campaigns which in his opinion have had an impact on elections,
(c) evidence of public opinion on the benefits and adverse impacts of third party activity at election time, and
(d) an assessment of the existing controls on third party campaigning at elections in the UK, and how these compare to other countries.
(2) In drawing up the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission,
(b) the Charities Commission,
(c) the Governments of the devolved nations,
(d) political parties,
(e) such persons or organisations who campaign to affect policies or politics,
(f) such persons who may publish opinions, whether on paper or electronically, that may be intended to influence policies or politics, and
(g) any other person he considers could be affected by controls on third party campaigning.’.
Clause stand part.
Schedule 3 stand part.
John Thurso
May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship and eagle eye, Mr Hoyle? Having regard to the point of order I shall keep my remarks as brief as I can.
Amendment 47 stands in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and is linked to amendment 46. I will also speak to new clause 4 although I do not intend to speak to any other amendments. Briefly, let me explain the context behind why I tabled these amendments. Part 2 of the Bill sets out limits and rules relating to non-party political campaigning. As I understand it, the Government’s intention is to draw a clear distinction between the activities of those such as charities and interest groups that seek particular policy outcomes that they promote to all candidates and parties in an election, against those third parties that seek to influence the outcome of an election by support or opposition to particular parties or candidates.
Our electoral system is based on a principle enshrined for many years that all political activity at elections, whether by established party or non-party groups, is regulated as to the amount of expenditure they may use. That is a long-held view. Our electoral system has held that unlimited funding on the US model is not how we wish to do our politics or elections, and that we should have expenditure limits. I wholly concur with that principle.
It is therefore right that non-party political campaigns should be subject to that principle just as much as parties—a point that was clearly accepted in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Indeed, if one were to reverse the argument, it would be very odd if non-partisan groups, or even charities, were to argue that they alone should be free to have an unfettered right to spend money with regard to who wins or loses an election, either in the country or an individual seat. Notwithstanding that principle, there are justifiable concerns about some aspects of the drafting of this Bill, and the amendments seek to address one such concern.
Clause 26, as drafted, amends section 85 of the 2000 Act. Amendment 47 paves way for the meat of the issue, which is amendment 46. It simply puts forward the proposition that we should leave the status quo in place. By deleting subsections (3) and (4), the amendment seeks to state that the Government wish to proceed on the basis that nothing has changed in that definition, so that is what we should have. My proposition is straightforward: let us stick with the status quo.
Tom Brake
I think that we shall have to wait and see—[Interruption.] As I have said to the hon. Gentleman, what we are seeking to do is to address the concerns expressed by charities about the lack of clarity in the definitions. We have indicated that we will revert to terms very similar to those used in the original legislation. I am sure that if he genuinely wants to address the concerns that charities have expressed, he will welcome that. As I said, we will return to the issue on Report.
In new clause 9, the hon. Member for Caerphilly calls on the Government to undertake a post-legislative assessment. New clause 10 also calls for such an assessment. We conducted an impact assessment, which we consider to be adequate, but the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, may well wish to undertake a post-legislative assessment. The Leader of the House and I are both keen for post-legislative scrutiny to take place, and, in fact, would encourage Select Committees to carry out more of it than they do at present.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly referred to the amendment which would alter schedule 3 by appearing to narrow slightly the types of manifesto or documents that are included, omitting those which set out a party’s policies, but not the third party’s view of them. It would also remove the detail of the type of expenses that should be included in calculation of the amount of controlled expenditure associated with any manifesto or other document setting out the third party’s view on the policies of a party or candidate.
At present, recognised third parties incur controlled expenditure in connection with the production or publication of election material which is made available to the public. That will normally cover activities such as advertising, unsolicited material addressed to electors, and any manifesto or document setting out the policies, or the recognised third party’s view on the policies, of one or more parties or candidates.
While schedule 3 expands the range of activities that may constitute controlled expenditure, manifestos or policy documents—being election material—are already covered by existing law, and will remain so. They are simply described here in a different way. I therefore urge that the amendment is not pressed to a vote.
References have been made to press conferences and rallies. I know that the TUC has expressed fears that it will not be allowed to hold its rally. Our view is that the TUC would not promote parties or political candidates at the rally—especially given what is happening at the TUC conference today, where it could almost be argued that the TUC is supporting anything but the Labour party. [Interruption.]
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. There are too many private conversations and sedentary interventions. May we have a bit of peace and quiet so that we can hear the Minister?
Tom Brake
I suspect that the Committee is becoming restless, Sir Edward, and that I need to move on very, very promptly. Members will be pleased to learn that I have reached the penultimate page of my notes.
I have explained to the hon. Member for Caerphilly that staff costs are covered by the controlled expenditure rules that apply now to non-party organisations. Therefore, by extending the definition of controlled expenditure, we are requiring them to account for staff costs in the areas that are now also covered by controlled expenditure.
Charlie Elphicke
There is a legitimate role for third sector organisations in making their case to elected representatives, as they have done, but some charities’ pay is out of control and their administrative expenses are too high. In those cases, not enough help is reaching the front line. I am concerned about the alleviation of poverty and about helping people in need on the front line, and it is really important that charities should have those values—
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. I think we are starting to stray from the matter before us.
Angela Smith
Thank you for your guidance, Sir Edward. All I would say is that many third sector organisations listening to this debate will have been very interested to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Dover.
Some—not all—Members on the Government Benches are clearly intent on curtailing the third sector’s crucial work of shining a light on inequality where it exists, and of campaigning and highlighting the need for changes in public policy, based on their experience and expertise.
The Temporary Chairman
The hon. Gentleman is a very courteous Member. He will want to know that six other Members are trying to speak, and the Minister, so I know he will want to allow other Members to get in—but there is an intervention.
Angela Smith
My hon. Friend’s hypothetical example prompts me to point to the supreme irony that the Bill has pulled together the Countryside Alliance and the League Against Cruel Sports in opposition to it.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am reducing the speaking limit to six minutes to enable everyone to speak.
Dr Whitehead
I am tending towards that view. As has been said, the Bill should be a matter of careful thought. Indeed, over a long period there has been substantial and careful thought about third-party campaigning. Nevertheless, the Bill has been the subject of no consultation, not even with the Electoral Commission on how it would carry out this rag-bag of proposals without putting itself in an impossible position. Turning up without consultation or warning is just not the way to organise and regulate third-party campaigning at elections.
Part 3 seeks further to regulate trade unions to count their membership in a way that they already do. I wonder what that is about. That seems to be dog-whistle politics that says, “We are putting further impediments in the way of trade unions, which are already doing what they are supposed to do, but we are taking action as though they weren’t.”
Overall, this is a shocking Bill, which goes 100% away from what we should be doing to regulate lobbying and about the process of third-party campaigning and civil society. We really need to take the Bill away and think again. I hope that we will vote to do that today, to get a Bill that we are in favour of—
Summer Adjournment
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Amess
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. However, I hope that the House will understand if I do not give way any more because I have promised the Deputy Speaker that I will be very quick and set a good example.
The new President of Iran, Mr Rouhani, seems to have been given a wonderful welcome, including in the press. Now that he has the office of President, I caution the House to judge him by his deeds, because his track record is not particularly wonderful.
The Maldives were a British protectorate and for 30 years a dictator ran the country. On 7 September, there are new elections. Given that we have a real interest in the Maldives, it is very important that those elections are held properly and fairly so that this nascent democracy is given all possible support.
I was delighted that one of my colleagues was introducing a Bill to amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but rather perplexed when the Bill was not presented. It is absolutely ludicrous that people can make freedom of information requests but we are not allowed know their names and addresses. The House must change that as a matter of urgency. It is completely gutless when people are not prepared to be named and reveal their identities.
I served on the Health Committee for 10 years, and during that time we initiated a debate on obesity. Given all the current talk about obesity, it is as if it has only just been invented. I urge the House to go to the House of Commons Library and look at the report that the Health Committee produced in 2003. If those recommendations had been followed, we would not be in the situation we are in now.
The Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, which I was privileged to pilot through the House, reduced the number of people in fuel poverty from 3.5 million in 2010 to 3.2 million in 2011, but there are still far too many. Although it is very warm at the moment, I hope that we will not take our eye off the ball in reducing the deprivation that some of our senior citizens feel when it comes to being warm in their homes.
Space exploration is something that interests us all. I am sure that all hon. Members can think of one or two people they would like to send up in a rocket, hopefully not to return. I would not think for a moment that the UK Space Agency would rival its counterpart in America, although I am very glad that a British astronaut has now joined the programme. Given that we are spending a huge amount of money on the High Speed 2 rail project, I hope, in the context of profitability, that we will look carefully at space exploration in future.
Mr Ray Woodcock is a local resident who raises a lot of money for charity by bungee jumping. On 18 August, he will be beating the Guinness world record for bungee jumping over water at a Welsh quarry, jumping a total of 400 ft. I know that all hon. Members will wish him well.
I recently had a meeting in my office with representatives of Coloplast, which was the first company in the world to develop the ostomy bag. They recently celebrated bowel independence day, which encourages GPs to offer newer technologies more regularly. I hope that the relevant Health Minister will look into this matter and support the company’s endeavours. On the same day, I met representatives of the Multiple Sclerosis Society, who informed me of the positive results that the MS risk sharing scheme has shown since its introduction in 2002. I hope that the scheme will be strengthened further in future and that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will look into the matter.
I was appalled by this week’s announcements about a number of hospitals. As I know Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals Trust extremely well, I feel very strongly that Monitor has played a significant role in what has happened in this tragedy. The people who run Monitor must be held to account by this House.
Monorails do not seem to be particularly popular in this country, but they do offer another way of getting round our busy cities. I am certainly going to encourage the good residents of Southend to have a monorail, and I hope that other hon. Members will be interested in this matter.
Essex bowling club is currently celebrating its 106th year. It is a wonderful club that has had a few trials and tribulations, particularly with the Inland Revenue. I am sending a message to the Deputy Leader of the House saying that I expect someone from the Treasury, as a matter of urgency, to extend the courtesy of meeting my constituents from Essex bowling club and helping them with their tax affairs.
We have all seen the commissioning of reports such as Chilcot and Leveson, and there is great news coverage at the time. Millions and millions of pounds have been spent on those reports. What has happened about the Chilcot report? Absolutely nothing. What has happened about the Leveson report? Absolutely nothing. This is a disgrace in relation to taxpayers’ money. I expect the House to take this issue seriously and to make sure that we get these reports delivered here as soon as possible. I assure the House that if there were an Amess report in years to come, I would not rest until action had been taken.
I conclude with Southend’s bid to be City of Culture. I was very disappointed that neither Southend nor anywhere in the south of the country was on the shortlist of four. All I can suggest to the House is that the Unite trade union probably had something to do with rigging the ballot. That said, I am now announcing that Southend-on-Sea will be the alternative City of Culture in 2017. We will do it through private enterprise, and I hope that everyone will visit Southend to see it.
I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, your fellow Deputies, the Speaker of the House, all the Attendants, and everyone who works here a wonderful summer after what has been a tremendous success in terms of sporting endeavours. If anyone is at a loose end, I would welcome them to come and see how Southend-on-Sea rocks.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Let us see whether we can rock the House with Mr Jim Cunningham on an eight-minute limit.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have just learned that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has laid an order under the Communications Act 2003 to reduce the number of public service broadcasting reviews from a regular review every five years to perhaps only one a decade. The order is not available in the Vote Office and cannot be read on the parliamentary website. It is less than an hour before the House rises for the last time for several weeks. Can you give me any guidance or advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, on what to do?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Unfortunately not. It is a matter for the Minister, but I am sure that if anything is untoward, the Vote Office will investigate. The point is certainly on the record now, however, and I am sure we are all aware of the communication—or rather, on this occasion, the lack of it.
Tom Brake
I wish I had not allowed that intervention, as I am short of a suitable riposte.
The hon. Member for Southend West said that Southend would provide an alternative city of culture in 2017. We will have to see what that culture amounts to, and we look forward to hearing some reports about that.
The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Jim Cunningham), who is no longer in his place, and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Gareth Thomas) referred to Coventry City football club. They will be aware that Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions are scheduled for the Thursday when the House returns, so that will be the earliest opportunity for them to raise the matter. Football governance has come up repeatedly in this place, and I have heard requests for the Backbench Business Committee to consider it. The hon. Member for Coventry South wanted everyone to get round a table to discuss it, and I and others would certainly be in favour of such discussions. I will draw this exchange to the attention of the Minister for Sport as requested, and I agree that football clubs are more than just a business, as they support local communities. The clubs will receive greater support from local communities if those communities are heavily engaged in what the clubs do. The hon. Member for Harrow West wanted supporters to have a greater voice through supporters’ trusts and he made a request—the Minister for Sport will see it in Hansard—for 5% of the Football Association’s funds to go to grass-roots sport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) talked sensibly about the London borough of Havering and its public library service. She praised Councillor Andrew Curtin for the role he is playing, and I think we would all echo what she said about the essential role that libraries play in developing children’s interest in reading and their culture. She referred to a read and rhyme scheme for improving, among other things, listening skills. Perhaps she could bring that to the House at some point, because listening skills could be developed further in the Chamber. We would all support my hon. Friend in what she said about the importance of reading. The second issue she raised was about the activities of Stubbers outdoor leisure centre and its important role in building young people’s skills and experiences, which they might not otherwise have, helping them to overcome their difficulties. She highlighted the importance of the National Citizen Service, and I hope that all Members will have played their part in promoting this valuable scheme.
My parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), referred to an unfortunate series of failures in communication and a real lack of competence in the police’s handling of the case of George Shaw and Paula Davidson. She made some understandable requests for the police to talk to her constituents about their experience and to explain to them why they did not get the support they needed to bring about closure in what was clearly a very serious case. Currently, they have not had closure because of the failure to produce the pertinent evidence.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) referred, as he has previously in these debates, to electronic or e-cigarettes and the difficulties they have created for a company in his constituency. He expressed his concern that the regulatory aspect might discourage people from taking up something that could make a contribution to health. I am sure that the Department of Health will have listened carefully to what he said. However, I hope he would also acknowledge that there are issues such as the ability of such products to deliver a consistent dose. There is clearly a need for regulation, but I think that what concerns him is how that should be done.
The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) said that 20 people had written to her about the European Union referendum and 50,000 had been in touch with her about Lewisham hospital.
Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is right. Not only Labour MPs, but the Labour party membership, were outvoted by the trade unions, and nothing that the Leader of the Opposition is saying will change that. As far as I am aware, one third of the electoral college for the leadership of the Labour party will continue to be trade-union controlled, so if they can get a sufficiently large majority, they can control the leadership of the Labour party.
The speech of the hon. Member for Hemsworth made no sense. I tried to listen to it and hear the argument, but if he wants to intervene and explain, even at this stage, I would be glad of that.
The motion is about regulating the ways that Members of the House work. As Leader of the House—that is one reason why I am responding to this debate—it is my view that proposals adopted by the House to regulate how Members behave should be the product of consultation across the House, and considered on the basis of proper scrutiny by relevant bodies, either in the House or externally. In this case, the Labour party has put forward a proposal without any such basis or advice to the House; procedurally it has gone about it the wrong way.
What is the real objective behind the motion? We should proceed in this House on the basis of trying to solve real problems. If the hon. Gentleman wants simply to talk about the issue, and the Labour party wants to get rid of the perception that those who are paid in this House are controlled by their paymasters, I have a simple proposition for the hon. Gentleman, which involves not taking money from the trade unions. That is not just a perception; the reality is that Labour’s interests are controlled by the trade unions. What is the hon. Gentleman trying to solve?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to reach a conclusion and bring the debate together, but I do not think he wants to be dependent on the policies and funding of the Labour party. This debate is about remuneration and second jobs in this House. I am sure the Leader of the House is desperate to get to that point.
Mr Lansley
I am trying to get to the argument, as I understood it, of the hon. Member for Hemsworth, and his point about the public perception that where Members of the House are in receipt of money from outside organisations, they are in the control of those organisations. I do not think that is true and I want to know what the motion is trying to achieve. It does not ensure that Members spend any given amount of time working with their constituents. A paid directorship or consultancy for one or two hours a week would be ruled out by this motion, but if a Member was engaged in travelling the world, for example, to undertake speaking engagements on behalf of some other organisation, which took them away for weeks—[Interruption.] Apparently in the view of Opposition Members that is absolutely fine and would not interfere with their ability to look after their constituents at all.
The motion does not stop Members having second jobs; it simply tries to stop them having certain kinds of second jobs, which is rather bizarre. It imposes no limit on the amount of money Members can earn outside politics; it simply wants to stop them earning money in particular ways.
Oliver Colvile
Earlier this year I had to appear in the jury at the Old Bailey and so had to be away from this place for a week—[Interruption.] Some Members might think that I was there on trial, but I was actually doing my civic duty, and Members of Parliament are now required to do that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Colvile, I am not sure that quite fits with paid directorships and consultancies, so I think we will let your good duty in court go—[Interruption.] Sir Edward, I do not think we need any help from you either.
Paul Flynn
Again, there is a great gulf between what is happening in this Chamber and what is happening outside. I believe that it is entirely reasonable for Members who wish to go off and do other work to do so under certain circumstances, but let us get away from the idea that MPs, who get a handsome salary as far as most of our constituents are concerned, should greedily look for other earnings. Of course it is an advantage also to work as a journalist, a writer or whatever else, but when it comes to the crunch and there is a crisis, when Members know that they should be here writing to Ministers, demanding answers, making a case or meeting people, if someone comes along and says they’ll pay them 10 grand to write an article in the next 24 hours, what choice will they make? If there is no money involved, there is no real choice, as we know where our loyalties lie. We must escape from that. I appeal to Members: do they not know how low the public’s regard for us is?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. You cannot suggest that we have another debate. The matter has been put on the record, and that is the record as it stands.
David Morris
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is arguable, though, is it not, how many Labour Members are being subsidised by the unions? Come on, hands up—let’s see you. How many are being supported by the unions? [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Sit down, Mr Morris. Let us get into the habit of using the Chamber in the way it should be used. In fairness, I think that the matter has been put on the record and straightened out. I am sure that you want to participate in the debate on directorships and remuneration of those who receive them.
David Morris
I totally agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have been sidetracked from what I wanted to say. If people do not want an MP who has a job outside Parliament, they should not vote for him.
Lobbying
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Allen
Speaking on behalf of the Select Committee, which studied the proposals in some detail, I am not proposing that the Government should accept the things that we said in our report. I am saying that the House as a whole should be given, say, three weeks under the auspices of the Select Committee to examine the Bill seriously, preferably before its Second Reading but even during an interregnum after that point, so that any Member, anyone in Government and anyone in the lobbying profession can make their views plain. Whatever shape the Bill is in—I am sure that it is perfectly formed—we might be able to improve it slightly through such an examination.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member, and he has already made his speech in the debate. We do not need a second one. Good interventions are short interventions.
Mr Allen
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to pray in aid the Select Committee when I have been clear, impartial and open with the House about our Select Committee’s scrutiny and the failure of the Government to respond to our report within a year? Is it somehow acceptable for the Minister to pray in aid the Select Committee in pursuit of arguments that he cannot seem to make himself?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I note that point and it is on the record. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I am not responsible for, and have no desire to be responsible for, the speech of the Deputy Leader of the House.
Tom Brake
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would have given way to the hon. Member for Nottingham North if he had waited his turn.
As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire can be reassured that when the Bill is published, there will be clarity and no room for misunderstanding or misconstruing the Government’s intentions when it comes to the definitions of lobbying, who is covered and who is not covered.
I was a little bit alarmed at the beginning of the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) when he seemed to be inviting you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to test the market to see what the going rate for paid representation was. Later, he clarified that that was not what he was suggesting. He raised a serious point about the powers that we have as a House to enforce our own rules. He wanted us to exercise those powers diligently and without hesitation, and I would certainly agree with him on that. We were then given the parliamentary equivalent of a TED talk on parliamentary privilege, which I suggest we put on YouTube for others to view later. Finally, I can give the reassurance that it is not the Government’s intention to include the Whips in the register.
Finally, there was a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who described herself as a lobbyist for her constituents—a role that we all applaud. We should all seek to imitate her in that role. She reinforced the point that both Front-Bench teams should show transparency. We will want to hear more from the Opposition about that.
business of the house
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), with whom I shared a trip to Nigeria last year, and to participate in the David Amess Adjournment debate. We heard my hon. Friend’s tour de force earlier, but I will concentrate on one subject.
I am always pleased to reassure my constituents that Harrow has one of the lowest crime rates in London. In fact, we are the second-safest borough in London for crime. For the past three years, crime has come down overall. However, I first got involved in dealing with knife crime when two savage incidents occurred in my constituency. To my horror, knife crime in Harrow has increased by 16% in the past two years. The overall crime figures show a reduction, and we see ourselves as a low-level borough for crime, including knife crime, but that increase prompted me to look at the wider figures in the country as well as in London.
Nationally, the knife crime figures are going in the right direction—they show that knife crime fell by 15% in the past three years, with the number of crimes coming down to around 30,000. However, in London in the comparable period, knife crime has increased by 15%. London accounts for nearly half of all knife crime committed in England and Wales, which is a serious concern.
The Government have seen fit to address that trend in the new tougher sentencing regime introduced as part of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which created the offence of aggravated knife possession—it is now an offence to threaten or endanger others with a knife or offensive weapon. The offence carries an automatic custodial sentence of six months for over 18s. I was one of a number of MPs who supported my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who tabled an amendment to insist on an automatic custodial sentence of four months for 16 and 17-year-olds.
The offence came into operation only on 3 December 2012, so we are unable fully to judge its effectiveness yet. However, we can say that this is not the end of the fight against knife crime, but only the beginning. We need to look at the recently released figures to know the trend, particularly the figures on knife possession—if people do not carry knives in the first place, they will not commit knife crime. In 2012, nearly a quarter of the offensive weapon possession offences were committed by repeat offenders—I would add that they repeated the same offence. Of 4,000 individuals, 43% escaped a custodial sentence. Forty-four per cent. of those offenders had three or more previous convictions, but also escaped a custodial sentence. Even more gallingly, 5% of repeat offenders escaped with nothing more than a caution. Both the rates of reoffending and the sentences show that something is going wrong.
Across London, 62% of knife crime is accounted for by personal robberies involving a knife. Knives are used primarily as a weapon of threat, and in only a small number of cases is someone injured, but 40% of homicides in England and Wales involve a knife. That leads to the utterly wrong view that possession is the least dangerous aspect of knife crime, and therefore unimportant. We must address that. An attitude needs to be introduced in this country by which knife possession is completely and utterly unacceptable. If we allow repeat offenders to escape with nothing but a caution, that attitude will not come about. If we had such an attitude, we would not allow nearly half of all repeat offenders to escape prison.
I believe that possession of a knife or offensive weapon needs to be taken much more seriously, which is why I call on Ministers to assess whether it would be appropriate to introduce a two-strikes policy, by which anyone found in possession of a knife who has a previous conviction for a knife-related offence should receive an automatic custodial sentence. That would make it clear, in the strongest terms, that the Government stand against knife crime and are prepared to challenge its root causes.
This is holy week, when Christians celebrate Easter, Jews commemorate the Passover and the deliverance from Egypt, and Hindus celebrate Holi. I wish people of all religions a very happy holy week.
Business of the House
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am glad the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to draw attention to that important anniversary and to the remarkable contribution of Dr David Livingstone as an explorer and someone who, as a consequence of that, was an inspiration to many in this country and beyond. I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. I am pretty sure she will be meeting the President of Malawi in the course of her visit, and I will draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the points that the hon. Gentleman raised in the House so that she can incorporate them in that discussion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
For the penultimate question, I call Mr Docherty.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Further to the points raised by the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), will the Leader of the House now confirm for the record that adequate time will be provided on Monday to debate not only the Prime Minister’s proposals but those of the Opposition?
Mr Lansley
I hope that what I said was clear and helpful to the House. It is our intention to secure adequate time and to do so without prejudice to the discussion of other very important matters on the second day of the Crime and Courts Bill. That will necessitate the House sitting beyond the moment of interruption on Monday. I do not know precisely what other amendments there may be in relation to press conduct or the Crime and Courts Bill, but I know that we will work with the Chair and through the usual channels to ensure that the House is able to have a full and decisive debate.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Surely we will have a debate to mark the 10th anniversary of the invasion and the war in Iraq. Iraq remains our most damaging and appalling foreign policy adventure ever, with more than 100,000 dead and the region destabilised. I was in the House with the right hon. Gentleman when we listened to the nonsense and the lies from the Labour Government on the case for war. Surely we should revisit that next week.