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

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

The hon. Lady makes another good point. We have to see what the size and value is as well as the fact that there have been meetings.

Part 2 covers third-party campaigning in the run-up to an election. All hon. Members will remember how the Prime Minister used to evangelise about the big society, but in one of the most sinister bits of legislation that I have seen in some time, this Bill twists the rules on third-party campaigning to scare charities and campaigners away from speaking out. It is an assault on the big society that the Prime Minister once claimed to revere. I say this because part 2 broadens significantly what activities will be caught by the phrase “election campaign”. That is set out in detail in new schedule 8A to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

Part 2 creates in clause 26 a new and extremely wide definition of “electoral purposes”. It is clear that these changes will have wide-ranging implications for many hundreds of charities and campaigners local and national, large and small. Some of them have told us that they will have to pull back from almost all engagement in debates on public policy in the year before the election. These changes have created massive uncertainty for those who may fall within the regulations in a way that the Electoral Commission has deplored. The changes will mean that third-party campaigning will be restricted even if it was not intended to affect the outcome of an election—for example, engaging in public policy debate. Staff costs and overheads will also have to be included in what has to be declared—something that does not apply in this way to political parties. The Electoral Commission has said that these changes could have a “dampening effect” on public debate. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has said that the changes will

“have the result of muting charities and groups of all sorts and sizes on the issues that matter most to them and the people that they support.”

38 Degrees has said that the changes will

“have a chilling effect on British democracy”.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

That is a lobbying group.

[Ms Eagle]

Conservative Members might not like the causes that 38 Degrees takes up, but surely we live in a free society and it has the right to do so. The hon. Lady has rather betrayed some of the partisan motivation that lies behind this Bill. Since she does not like 38 Degrees, perhaps she will listen to the TaxPayers Alliance, which has said:

“The bill is a serious threat to independent politics that will stifle free and open democratic debate.”

Yesterday even Owen Jones and “Guido Fawkes” were agreeing that this Bill is “undemocratic”, so the Government have managed to cause some unlikely coalitions, of which that is probably the most unlikely. We must be under no illusion: if these rules pass into law unamended they will seriously undermine free and fair democratic debate in the run-up to the next election. Blogs may well be regulated and stifled too. The changes in part 2 have met with universal opposition. Even “ConservativeHome” and “Liberal Democrat Voice” have joined “LabourList” in publishing highly critical pieces condemning their own Government’s clampdown on free speech.

[Angie Bray]

I am sure that the hon. Lady would agree that it is perfectly reasonable to describe 38 Degrees as a lobbying outfit. That is what it calls itself; it comprises lobbyists. I have been lobbied by it on many different occasions. Unless she is saying that to call somebody a lobbyist is somehow an insult, I think that it is perfectly legitimate to call it a lobbying organisation.

[Ms Eagle]

The hon. Lady needs to look at her own Government’s Bill to see that it defines 38 Degrees not as a lobbying organisation but as a third-party organisation, and the Bill attempts to gag the ability of third-party organisations to make points on policy and politics during an election campaign.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

I shall focus primarily on the lobbying aspect of this Bill, having provided media advice to a public affairs company back in the 1990s. Ironically, I have been heavily lobbied on this Bill myself by the well-known lobbying organisation 38 Degrees. I should say for the record that I certainly support parts 2 and 3, but I cannot say the same about part 1.

The Leader of the House has told us that the Bill seeks to increase transparency, but I say with regret that I fear it will fail to achieve that laudable aim. Indeed, if left unamended it will simply give us a false sense of security, and it will be Parliament’s and the Government’s reputations that will suffer when people discover that, to misquote, “It doesn’t do what it says on the tin.”

Lobbying may not be the oldest profession, though some may feel that it shares some of the same attributes, but it has certainly been around for as long as there has been a Parliament. Naturally, those wanting to advocate an interest or to make a case will gravitate towards the decision makers gathered together in Parliament. As a former Member for Enfield, Southgate, Michael Portillo, once said in respect of lobbying, every great city needs its sewers. He was right. Some in this House may not particularly like lobbyists, but they provide a service in contributing information to our debates and policy making. Crucially, we may choose to accept or reject this information as we see fit. Of course, the right to be heard is an integral part of our democratic process, and surely any individual or business is entitled to retain an advocate to make their case.

That is not to say that legitimate concerns have not been raised about malpractices in the past, but the industry responded to those by establishing its own code of conduct and register, which have, so far as I am aware, been effective. After all, the existing register includes names of all lobbyists employed by a consultancy, as well as the names of all the clients on whose behalf they work. It may not be perfect, but it provides a great deal more transparency than is proposed in the Bill, because fewer companies would be required to register under this Bill than under the industry’s own voluntary code. Whereas now almost all lobbyists declare any clients for whom they provide political advice, under this Bill they would only declare clients on whose behalf they have had direct communication with Ministers or permanent secretaries. The Bill seems to suggest that humble Back Benchers, and members and even Chairmen of Select Committees, carry little influence. I know that Back Benchers are sometimes described as “Lobby fodder”, but it seems harsh to enshrine such a view in law.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Lady is making a strong point about part 1. Does she share my concern that the vast majority of lobbying that goes on is not with Ministers or permanent secretaries but with other parts of the political system, and the Bill does not address that?

[Angie Bray]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, one well understood by those who have had some experience of the lobbying industry.

This aspect of the Bill will affect only “consultant lobbyists”; it will not affect in-house lobbyists, trade associations, charities, trade unions, accountants or lawyers. But that is not all, as it will not even affect all consultant lobbyists; it will affect just those for whom lobbying is a substantial part of their businesses. There must be a number of large companies for which lobbying is a substantial part of their business, but they can reasonably claim it is subsumed into all the other connected areas that they work in.

Fewer companies would be registered under this Bill than currently register voluntarily. The point at which registrable activities would be triggered would actually mean that less lobbying activity is declared. No light would be shed on the numerous companies and organisations that lobby us daily but do so using an in-house lobbyist. Again, there are some large companies whose business encompasses a wide variety of interests, but we will not know, thanks to this Bill, which bit they are pushing at any meeting at any given time. Far from bringing transparency to lobbying, the Bill defines lobbying so tightly and so unrealistically as to become almost meaningless.

Let us remind ourselves of why this Bill, so long in gestation, has been brought forward now. It is because of a raft of allegations in the media in recent months that pointed towards misconduct by parliamentarians, but let us be clear that no actual lobbying company was involved in those episodes and that, in any case, rules are already in place. More importantly, the activities uncovered by the media would not have been registrable under this Bill, because none of the protagonists were either Ministers or permanent secretaries. I am afraid that in seeking to clear up the lobbying scandals we should perhaps look closer to home.

Also unchecked by this Bill will be all those with parliamentary passes and free access to Parliament whose ultimate paymasters are not the MP or peer whose name appears on the pass, but a raft of special interest groups or trade unions. We will learn nothing more about their activities in Parliament because these people will also not be covered by the Bill—so much for transparency.

I wish to focus my closing remarks on the effect of the Bill on charitable and other non-party campaigning. On that aspect, I am pleased to say that I am more supportive of the Bill. It seems iniquitous that candidates are limited by the amount they can spend during an election period on setting out their arguments, but that a third party can lavish many more thousands of pounds to make a political case that could have a direct influence on the outcome of a local or national result.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

Is there any academic evidence of the effect of third-party campaigning in changing the result of an election to Parliament?

[Angie Bray]

I cannot imagine that anybody would waste their money if they did not think that there was a desirable outcome.

If we are to limit election expenditure, then limit it we should without fear or favour to any political party or special interest group. I find it hard to believe that many members of the public who happily chuck a couple of quid into a bucket rattled for a charity in a supermarket on a Saturday morning fervently wish their money to go into political campaigning rather than to the cause that has appealed to their generosity in the first place. That is why I do not believe that the Bill will affect charitable activity; I do not believe that charities, on the whole, tend to do politics.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Angie Bray]

No. I have given way twice and other Members are keen to speak.

Let us be clear: the Bill will not curtail policy campaigning but only campaigns during elections that are targeted directly at political parties or their candidates, who are themselves limited in what they spend.

I fear that the Bill will not succeed in one of its primary aims, and I speak as a candid friend when I urge the Minister to revisit the proposals for the register of lobbyists. The Government are right to seek to extend transparency further in the lobbying of Parliament, but sadly I do not think we have grabbed the opportunity with both hands, as we should. Although I hesitate to say that we need less of a rush, given how long it has taken to get to this point, we need far greater detailed consideration and—dare I say it—a better understanding of how the lobbying industry works.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes; we are awaiting the findings of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. I pay tribute to its work on this issue, as I have on many occasions. As soon as we have the report back, we will announce the next steps.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), will recall a meeting to discuss the better regulation of DMOL, which organises channel listings for Freeview, at which he undertook to take a look at the matter. Will he update the House on any progress that has been made?

[Mr Vaizey]

Yes; my understanding is that DMOL applied to Ofcom, effectively to have its electronic programme guide regulated by Ofcom. I will write to my hon. Friend with the full details of the implications.

Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

No, I am afraid that that is not the precise nature of the conversation, but I am short for time now. I am quite happy to correspond with the Secretary of State, but I believe that he misled and that he deliberately did so on those occasions.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to give way further, because I have already given way on four occasions to the Secretary of State.

The proof that those claims were untrue is that there was un-minuted contact when the Secretary of State had control of the bid—twice on 20 January 2011, once on 21 January, three times on 3 March, three times on 13 March and once on 3 July. He could have corrected the record, but without Rupert Murdoch, we would never have known about it. That is the honest truth of this matter.

The Secretary of State has always protested that, once in charge of the bid, he operated impartially. Yet despite being directly advised on 10 November 2010 not to have any external discussions on the BSkyB media merger, he texted the Chancellor on the day that he acquired responsibility for the bid to say:

“Just been called by James M. His lawyers are meeting now and saying it calls into question legitimacy of whole process from beginning.”

It is absolutely clear that the Secretary of State had a conversation that he had been advised he should not have, precisely and in terms. He was colluding with News Corporation, and to deny it again today is yet another way of misleading the House.

It has often been said by the Prime Minister that all these issues have been dealt with by Leveson, but the Leveson inquiry, because of article IX of the Bill of Rights, has absolutely no power; indeed, it is legally barred from questioning or impeaching any proceeding in Parliament. That is why not a single question was posed about any of these matters to the Secretary of State and why there has to be a reference to the independent adviser.

I end with these few words:

“this is a shabby, shabby business”.

Not my words: the words of a full-time Murdoch employee and former Tory Member of Parliament, Matthew Parris.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

That would be a matter for the independent adviser, not the Prime Minister, to decide.

At the start of the present Parliament, the Committee resolved not to inquire into individual cases. Accordingly, we have made no judgment of any of the evidence on the conduct of the Secretary of State, which others in the House seem to have done. It is therefore not for me to say whether the Prime Minister should refer the Secretary of State to the independent adviser. It is highly unlikely that there are many right hon. or hon. Members who take a disinterested view of the evidence. Indeed, some of those named on the motion have already called for the Secretary of State’s resignation; they have already made up their minds. I put it to the House that this is effectively a vote of confidence in the Minister, rather than a decision of the House whether or not to refer.

That is precisely why it should be for the independent adviser himself to decide whether to investigate. That would take the decision out of the political arena and place it firmly in the hands of a person who is impartial in these matters. That is the basis of everything I have said on this matter. I have never made a judgment about the merits or otherwise of the case in question.

[Angie Bray]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Jenkin]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not.

Now that Sir Alex Allan himself has said that the Leveson inquiry’s probing and taking evidence under oath means that he does not believe that he could usefully add to the facts in this case, I personally wonder why the Opposition are persisting with the motion.

This does not absolve the Government from addressing many awkward questions. I have too many remarks for the time available, but they concern matters that the Government might not want to hear about, including the role and function of special advisers. I am happy to inform my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) that the Public Administration Committee had already embarked on an inquiry into this subject before the resignation of Adam Smith, which served only to intensify the debate about numbers of special advisers, about what they are really there for, about whether the new code of conduct for special advisers is effective, and about how special advisers should be held accountable for what they do, and to whom. Under the Blair Administration, the role of special advisers was changed. Happily, it has now changed back, but this has done something to change the terms of trade for special advisers in government, and Whitehall is still adapting to that change. Our inquiry is exploring that matter.

There are further questions to which we still need answers. Whom did Adam Smith really believe he was serving in his role as go-between? Was it his Secretary of State, who is nominally responsible for the conduct of special advisers under the ministerial code? Or was it “the government as a whole”? That is a phrase I use advisedly, because the code was changed under the new Government, and all special advisers now serve “the government as a whole”. Has that phrase subtly changed the accountability of SpAds so that they are now no longer clear about to whom they are ultimately accountable?

What is the role of the permanent secretary in the supervision of the conduct of a special adviser, who is, after all, still a civil servant? I would even go so far as to ask—perhaps controversially—whether the top of the civil service has lost some of the self-confidence and authority that in yesteryear might have seen a permanent secretary act more decisively in such a situation. I hope that we will never again see a special adviser fired from his job for doing what he believed to be the right thing, simply because he had been left in ignorance of the boundaries of conduct that he should have observed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and given what he has said, I hope that he will join us in the Lobby and oppose this shameful motion.

All sorts of claims have been thrown out about improper behaviour, but for the public outside, the reality is that News Corp still has only a 39% shareholding in BSkyB. If, as Opposition Members have suggested, there was collusion and an agenda, surely the process would have been completed some time ago. The reality is very different: the reality is that the Enterprise Act 2002 was followed properly, and representations were made in line with the law. Opposition Members may talk about perceptions, but the law must be followed. I am absolutely confident that by taking independent advice and, indeed, going further than he needed to, my right hon. Friend showed that he was setting aside his own view that this could be the right thing for our media. He set that view aside when he took on his responsibility, and nothing has been said today that suggests anything to the contrary.

[Angie Bray]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has ever heard the expression “Don’t let the facts spoil a good story”, but I think that it is about as appropriate a phrase that there could possibly be to describe what is happening today. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are entering the deepest realms of conspiracy theory?

[Dr Coffey]

I agree with my hon. Friend. This has been an extraordinary time. While I understand the politics of the Opposition, I wish that they would focus on the real issues that are affecting the country today, such as the economy and foreign affairs in, for instance, Syria. The Leader of the Opposition made no reference to those matters earlier.

There might be rather more positive feeling in the Chamber if the last Government had acted in any way that suggested that the ministerial code was being followed. Let me clarify that. I am not criticising the last Prime Minister for not referring himself to the ministerial adviser or resigning on matters affecting his own advisers which led to their being sacked or having to resign, and I think that the Opposition should extend the same courtesy to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He trusted his special adviser strongly and has the highest regard for him—I have no reason to doubt that—but, again, things did not go well. The gentleman resigned, and my right hon. Friend acted honourably in accepting the resignation and making it clear that that behaviour was not appropriate.

Although I have taken two interventions, I do not wish to extend my speech unnecessarily, because I know that many other Members wish to speak. I will be voting against the motion because of its naked political opportunism, and because no evidence has been presented suggesting that my right hon. Friend acted in any way against the law, or the spirit of the law. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and BSkyB is still independent of News Corp’s ownership. Many frustrations were experienced along the way, which led to some of the excessive lobbying that we have seen. I encourage every Member to reject the motion out of hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) that this is an important issue that should be debated, and the Opposition should have an opportunity to raise it on the Floor of the House, but we have heard nothing new today—nothing that has not been covered many times before. With respect, I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) that I did not hear what the pertinent extra questions that the Secretary of State must answer were; I did not learn what outstanding issues have not yet been covered. We have gone around in circles on all the old issues. That is why it was right for Sir Alex Allan to say there was nothing more he could add because what more was there to say after the six hours of evidence at the Leveson inquiry and all the previous opportunities for questioning on the Floor of the House?

A lot has been made of the memo that the Secretary of State sent to the Prime Minister. It was sent at a time when the Secretary of State had no idea that he would be asked to be involved in this process. The memo rightly deals with media policy and a recommendation about that any decision not to allow the bid to go forward should be taken on grounds of media plurality and not as a result of lobbying from outside organisations which may be open to judicial review. That was a perfectly proper point of view, and perfectly reasonable advice of the sort that a Culture Secretary might give to a Prime Minister.

Earlier, I asked the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) to read out the sentence in which the Secretary of State says:

“It would be totally wrong for the Government to get involved in a competition issue which has to be decided at arm’s length.”

Could the Secretary of State have been any clearer about his views on the process and how it should be followed by members of the Government? We should see his final sentence—his request for a meeting—in the context of that remark. There may well be some broader issues about media policy that it would be perfectly appropriate for the Culture Secretary and the Business Secretary to discuss with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—issues that were not at all specific to the merger deal that was on the table. The significance of this memo has been blown out of all proportion.

Let us turn to the guidance that the Secretary of State received. I have not heard any Member question the method by which he sought outside independent advice during the course of his deliberations on this matter, or challenge whether he asked for more information than he needed or ask questions about publishing all the advice on the record so everyone could see it—something no Secretary of State had done before in a similar situation. No one has questioned that, so I challenge the notion that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) touched on at the beginning of the debate: that this process was always flawed and the Secretary of State was always prejudiced in his view, because there is absolutely no evidence of that at all. There is no evidence that the Secretary of State did anything other than follow the independent advice and undertake his legal obligations as Secretary of State through the process. No Member today has challenged him on the substance of what he did.

Let us consider what the Leader of the Opposition said at the Leveson inquiry yesterday. He was asked what his view was on how this process may be changed for the future—about what we can learn from what has happened. He said he thought politicians should remain involved. When this matter was debated last summer, that was not the view of the shadow Secretary of State, who said politicians should be taken out of the process entirely. The Labour party now believe politicians should be involved in taking these decisions. Where the Secretary of State moves away from independent advice, that should be published, and it can be reviewed and appealed. Under the Leader of the Opposition’s view of how things should work in future, the result would have been exactly the same. Nothing would have been different, because the Secretary of State followed all the advice, so there would have been no need for a referral or appeal. There can be no proper questions about whether something wrong was done.

Opposition Members claim there was some massive conspiracy to favour News Corporation, but they have absolutely no evidence of that. It is a bit like someone complaining that an assailant has picked their pocket even though they remain in possession of the wallet they claim has been stolen. The Secretary of State did not abuse his power. He was not open to influence and external lobbying from News Corporation that in any way could have affected his judgment, because there is no evidence of any such action by him.

[Angie Bray]

Is that not the disgraceful thing about today’s debate? We have had no new evidence, but just a lot of smears and highly partisan accusations. Such behaviour is what demeans the reputation of the House of Commons.

[Damian Collins]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I believe there are no grounds for further inquiries; we have covered all these points. This is still an important issue, however, and it is perfectly valid for the House to debate it. The Secretary of State has now had a chance to come to the House and set the record straight on many of the important outstanding questions, but some Opposition Members will never be satisfied. The genesis of this debate came a few weeks ago when the shadow Secretary of State called for the resignation of the Secretary of State without having read the evidence submitted to the Leveson inquiry. The call came only 23 minutes after a great volume of paper had been produced. I cannot presume that the shadow Secretary of State read all of that in the 23 minutes it took to make the decision. She has dug a hole and kept on digging, and not been able to produce any new evidence—nothing of significance at all.

Why are we even in this position, why are we even having this debate and why do we know so much about what the Secretary of State said? At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said the only reason why the News Corporation bid could have come in was that the last Government changed the rules on allowing foreign companies to own UK broadcasters. We would all be fascinated to see the chain of e-mails, text messages and correspondence between Ministers in the last Government on that matter, but we will never do so. We only know about this issue because the Prime Minister decided there should be a full public inquiry and all the information has been made public. Ministers have been questioned on the record about it.

We also know from the Leveson inquiry the reasons why Tony Blair did not feel the last Government should have had an inquiry in 2006-07, after the Information Commissioner’s report looking at illegal use of information in news stories had been published and after concerns had been raised. He did not do it because he did not want the fight with the press. The last Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), ducked that issue as well, despite the revelations in The Guardian about phone hacking and despite the work of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in the last Parliament producing more concerns and more evidence. He did not dare take on the media and have this row.

This Government have done that. In the handling of the News Corporation-BSkyB merger, there can never have been a more transparent process in respect of understanding the thinking and working of a Secretary of State in making his decision. It is clear that the Secretary of State always followed independent advice, and no Member today has advanced any argument that questions that in any way.

Business of the House

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

A new report by a former president of the British Veterinary Association states that more than 25% of meat sold in our shops comes from animals that have not been stunned before slaughter. That figure exceeds easily the needs of our communities with special religious requirements, and it suggests that some abattoirs are cutting corners and costs. May we please have a statement from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the measures in place to protect our animal welfare laws, and on whether any new measures are needed to ensure that we enforce them properly?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend raises an important and sensitive issue. Obviously, ideally, all animals should be stunned before slaughter, but she will recognise that there are religious issues here and that people have a preference to have their meat presented differently. We will, however, consult on measures to improve the welfare of animals slaughtered in accordance with religious rites when we consult on measures to implement regulation 1099/2009, which comes into effect on 1 January next year. The regulation deals specifically with the protection of animals at the time of killing, so there will be an opportunity for my hon. Friend to influence the decision-making process later this year.

Business of the House

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady raises a good question. There will be Health questions on Tuesday, when there may be opportunity for her to ask it, but I will in any event raise it with the Secretary of State for Health and ask him to write to her, to ensure that information that should be in the public domain remains so.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Many of my younger constituents will be delighted with the news about the enterprise loans announced in yesterday’s Budget, which will help them set up their own businesses. May we have a debate on how we can build on such measures to help our young entrepreneurs?

[Sir George Young]

We can indeed have such a debate, and it will commence when business questions finish. I am delighted to hear that the enterprise loans scheme is alive and well in my hon. Friend’s constituency, with which I have some acquaintance. We all have a role to play in making information about it available in our constituencies, so that young people can get access to those loans, build their own businesses and help build a thriving community in west London.

Business of the House

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

There is a pile of rubble in the centre of Ealing on the site where the Ealing cinema used to stand. Empire, which owns the site, has consistently disappointed and frustrated many of my constituents by failing to deliver on its promises to build a new cinema and by evading all opportunities to explain the continued delay.

[Sir George Young]

As the former Member for Ealing Acton, I spent many evenings in that cinema, and I am sorry to hear that it has been demolished. My hon. Friend will know that under planning legislation, the planning authority can impose a condition that rebuilding shall start by a given date, and it has powers to commence that work if the applicant does not do so. I very much hope that the London borough of Ealing will look again at the planning powers available to it—under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, I think—and take whatever action it can to ensure that my hon. Friend can go to a decent cinema in her constituency.

Sittings of the House (20 and 23 March)

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

With permission, I will respond briefly to some of the points that hon. Members have raised. First, let me say that I absolutely bask in the approbation of Master Thomas Bone. His views on who are goodies and who are baddies now represent the signal sign of respect across the country, and I am very pleased to know that I am a goodie.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) about the importance that we as parliamentarians should attach to sittings in Westminster Hall. I regularly hear people speak as though a debate there was a second-class debate, as though it was beneath them even to appear there to speak to a motion that mattered to them, and as though the House was disrespecting the issues that are debated there. Nothing could be further from the truth. Until this House recognises the value of Westminster Hall debates and, indeed, debates that are now held here in time allocated to the Backbench Business Committee rather than in Government time—until we understand the esteem of those occasions—we are doing ourselves a great disservice.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

I would like to add to what the hon. Gentleman has said about Westminster Hall. I have just been over there myself, and an absolutely huge debate is taking place about safe cycling campaign of The Times. In fact, it is virtually standing room only, even for Members who wish to participate. That is a serious debate that demonstrates that Westminster Hall can be a very good place to have important debates.

[Mr Heath]

It can indeed, with the one proviso being that the debate must be on a matter that does not need resolution by a Division at the end. Yesterday, I heard an excellent debate, which I sat through in its entirety, on the very sad issue of Kevin Williams and the events in Sheffield those many years ago. It was a superb debate, with every contributor making extremely valuable comments, and yet some were also moved to say that it was a shame that it was not taking place in the Chamber and that the Government—despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the Government—had chosen to put it on in Westminster Hall. That is a very unfortunate way of expressing things because it gives the public the idea that matters of huge concern to them are somehow devalued by being debated by parliamentarians in Parliament in a place where, yes, matters are not subject to a decisive vote, but some matters one would not expect to be so.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Wellingborough referred to the use of the debating time immediately before the recess. He knows that I relish my involvement—others may not—in pre-recess Adjournment debates. I sometimes feel that I have rather more speeches to respond to than I have time available, but that is a different matter. Those debates are clearly valued by Members of the House. I hope it is a tradition that we can largely keep to, but I entirely understand the reasoning that the Backbench Business Committee has applied in this case.

As regards the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), I am glad that the hon. Members for Wellingborough and for Christchurch (Mr Chope) entered a reservation about having Westminster Hall debates on a Monday morning. Those of us who live a little further away from Westminster would find it rather difficult to get to those comfortably as well as being in our constituencies at the weekend.

In moving the amendment, the hon. Member for Kettering mentioned what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in business questions earlier and asked me to be powerful in my advocacy of the case. I think the Leader of the House said that I was required to be not powerful but coherent and compelling. It certainly is not for me to decide whether I have been coherent or compelling; the vote will determine that in due course, so let us see.

The thrust of what the hon. Member for Kettering said is that there are huge demands on time in this House. Of course he is right. There has always been great demand for time by Back Benchers who have matters that they wish to debate, and there has never been sufficient time on the supply side to meet that demand. Even if the House were to sit in continuous Session, it would not cope with the demands that are expressed every week at business questions, which are so ably answered by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

I have worked out what it would take to give a proper debate to each of the 51 topics raised in business questions this week. Of course, different topics are raised every week. We would need to more than double the time that we sit in this House each week. Does anyone think that is practical? Does anyone think we could double the time that we sit each week? There probably are some people who think that is practical, but most people understand it is in the interests of Members that they sleep occasionally and in the interests of constituencies that their Members sometimes visit to hear what real people have to say about real things, rather than simply spending their time in the House. I think it would be impossible to meet the demand.

The question is how we can reasonably limit the demand and provide time. If we are going to change our arrangements, we should not make it up as we go along. We need to come to a properly considered view, taking into account all the pros and cons, as we have done previously when we have changed the Standing Orders. I simply do not accept that bringing forward an ad hoc suggestion without the benefit of Standing Orders, in the way that has been suggested, is the right way to proceed.

The hon. Member for Wellingborough said that this House should have more control over its own timetable. I absolutely agree with that, and that is what we have given it. However, I do not think it encourages the House to be sensible in the use of its time if we ask it to reverse on 23 February a decision that it made on 21 February—to say on the Thursday the opposite of what it said on Tuesday. I therefore think that we should reject that proposal.

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) talked about incompetence. I will point out incompetence: incompetence is the Opposition not being able to tell us until a day before what they will discuss on an Opposition day, when they have had weeks to prepare for it. She said that the reason the previous Prime Minister was so frequently away from Prime Minister’s questions was that he was going around the world saving it. I am not sure that we all recognise that description.

The hon. Lady said that the Leader of the Opposition enjoys Prime Minister’s questions. I can see that he might take some comfort from being surrounded by well-wishers, all desperately hoping that he will do better than the previous week, with the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) willing him forward and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) looking at his successor with avuncular charm. All those things might spur the Leader of the Opposition on to another of his relaunches—the man has been relaunched more often than the Padstow lifeboat. However, it is the purpose of the House not to give those opportunities to the Leader of the Opposition, but to ensure that Ministers are held to account. This House sets out its business in a proper—[Interruption.] Oh! Isn’t it wonderful? The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who had such strong views about this business earlier in the week that he raised a point of order, has arrived one minute before the vote to say something from a sedentary position.

I commend the motion to the House. I ask it not to engage in ad hoc changes to our Standing Orders by accepting the amendments. I hope that we will always ensure that the House has adequate time properly to scrutinise the affairs of Government.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Business of the House

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I applaud the work that is done at Feltham with often very vulnerable and disturbed young people. We had Justice questions on Tuesday; I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to raise the matter then. I will raise it with appropriate Ministers at the Ministry of Justice and see whether there is a way to protect that important programme.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner on the “total policing”, as he calls it, which saw a successful conclusion to yesterday’s protest in London? The Mayor of London is on target to put an extra 1,000 police officers on the streets of London by the end of this term of office. May we have a debate on the effective deployment of police officers when tackling public disorder and protest?

[Sir George Young]

I am delighted that yesterday’s protest went off peacefully. I commend the work of the Mayor of London on reducing crime in the capital and ensuring that there are more police patrols, for example by having single patrolling. I am sure that Londoners will recognise the wisdom of his administration when they go to the polls next year.

Business of the House

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Ealing recently held its first public scrutiny meeting on the aftermath of the riots. One of the main concerns was the slowness with which insurance companies have been responding to claims from riot victims. If that is the case, it is totally unacceptable. Will my right hon. Friend raise the matter with the Business Secretary and perhaps ask for a statement to be made to the House?

[Sir George Young]

It would be quite wrong of insurance companies to penalise the victims of the riots by withholding the compensation to which they are entitled. I say in passing that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has extended the period during which businesses can claim for compensation. I will certainly raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who may want to raise it with the Association of British Insurers. I am sure that individual Members of Parliament will take up any case where an injustice has been done to their constituents, and pursue it directly and vigorously with the insurance company concerned.

Business of the House

Baroness Bray of Coln Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I have had a very quick conversation with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is sitting beside me, and I understand that he has the answer to the questions the hon. Gentleman has just posed somewhere in his red folder.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Later this afternoon, a plaque is being unveiled at the excellent Brentham club in Ealing to commemorate Fred Perry, who started his tennis career there. Does the Leader of the House agree that we want more of our young tennis players to get into the top rankings and that it might be helpful to spend some time in a debate working out how we can help to achieve that?

[Sir George Young]

I have happy memories of the Brentham club, which used to be in my Ealing constituency, and I am delighted to hear of the event commemorating Fred Perry. I also have happy memories of the Ealing lawn tennis club, which I hope is also surviving. I would welcome a debate on sport and how we might do more to encourage young people, not only in tennis, but in other activities. I very much hope that 2012—I hope I may mention that date without getting into serious trouble—will provide an opportunity to raise the profile of sport and encourage more young people to get involved.