Cyber-security

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

Encryption is obviously important, but it is for businesses to decide what level of encryption they want to operate. These are obviously delicate matters, but there is a lot of technology here, and I am happy to say that Britain is very good at it.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

It has been an enormous privilege in this Parliament for me to serve with my right hon. Friend in his team at the Cabinet Office doing exactly this work. Will he update the House further on what he continues to do to keep our critical national infrastructure safe?

[Mr Maude]

I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend both for what she says and for the incredibly important work she did, particularly in taking the message about the need to strengthen cyber-security defences out to the business community, which she did with her characteristic energy and clarity. So far as the critical national infrastructure is concerned, a huge amount of work is already under way to continue to ensure that we understand the vulnerabilities. Obviously, the critical national infrastructure is not primarily owned by the state—it is in private sector hands—so we need to understand the vulnerabilities and work with the owners of that infrastructure to ensure that the defences are as good as they can be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

The Government are conscious that as part of the move to IER we must make efforts to maximise the register. To do that, we have allocated £4.2 million to 363 local authorities and partnered with five national organisations. We will obviously take a look at what is happening in Wales, but we are already taking steps to maximise the register.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

10. Having stood in his shoes, I support my hon. Friend’s work on registration. Does he agree that the time has come to consider updating our voting methods to include online and mobile options, in line with the way in which an entire generation lives its life in other spheres?

[Mr Gyimah]

That is a good point. It is worth noting that the move to online registration, which the Government introduced, represents the biggest modernisation of our electoral registration system in more than 100 years. However, registering to vote is very different from actually casting a vote online. Currently, if there is an error, we can check it, but if someone voted online and there was an error there would be no mechanism for checking it. So that is a step we will not be taking at this moment.

Youth Employment

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. Along with my hon. Friends the Members for Braintree (Mr Newmark) and for Redcar (Ian Swales) and the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), and with the support of others, I asked the Backbench Business Committee to support a debate on youth employment. I am grateful to the Committee for its support.

The subject of this debate is not unemployment but employment. We want this debate to be a positive one. We would like to promote what we can do in our constituencies to help get young people into work. Many hon. Members run jobs fairs, information campaigns, apprenticeship drives, work experience programmes and much more in their constituencies. This debate is an opportunity to celebrate the success of those programmes and share the ideas behind them so that hon. Members can perhaps return to their constituencies during the summer recess with the opportunity to do more to help local young people. I am grateful to the Million Jobs campaign, which has supported this debate, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree will speak more about it.

First, I will briefly set out the national picture, and then I will share an example of my own. We will have the latest monthly employment figures tomorrow, but as of today, employment is at 30.5 million, which is up 345,000 on the quarter and represents a huge rise in the number of jobs created in the private sector. The net rise in employment over four years is 1.69 million. Unemployment is at 2.6 million, which is down on the quarter and over a four-year period. Long-term unemployment is down 108,000 on the year.

Youth unemployment is also down. Some 3.4 million 18 to 24-year-olds were in employment in the last three months, an increase on the previous year. In the same period, 677,000 people aged 18 to 24 were unemployed, a fall of 11.5% from the previous year. Of course, those studying are included in the figure covering unemployment, so not all of those 677,000 are necessarily seeking a job. Expressed as a percentage, our national unemployment rate is currently 16.5%.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I would not have intervened so early, but as she is mentioning figures and good news, I wonder whether she has noted that in Warwick and Leamington, youth unemployment has fallen by 67% since April 2010? That is obviously good news, but we need to do more. Does she agree that we should do whatever we can to encourage businesses to work more closely with our schools and colleges in terms of mentoring, work experience and careers advice to help give our young people an even better start in finding a job?

[Chloe Smith]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on that point. He has helpfully set up the point about co-operation that I wish to emphasise in this debate.

Our national youth unemployment rate has hovered under 20% for much of the last four years; if we look across Europe, we see that our young people are significantly better off than, for example, those in Spain, where about half of young people cannot find work. They are also better off than those in Uganda, where I have just had the privilege of meeting young leaders from nine countries through the Democrat Union of Africa. I learned there that youth unemployment in Uganda is the highest in Africa; the African Development Bank says that it could be as high as 83%. Uganda also has the world’s largest percentage of young people under 30, at 78% of the entire population.

Youth unemployment is a blight for any nation, but most of all it is a blight on every young person who has a hope, a dream and something to offer. Those are not numbers; they are real people. It is a sapping experience to seek work and not get it. Unemployment is a crying shame for those who want to put education to good use and an appalling burden for those who want to work hard and get on without falling back on benefits.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I was one of the first MPs to hire, train and retain an apprentice. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a good way we can make an individual difference? Does she also agree that the statistics show that, for example, every single one of the 29 constituencies in the north-east shows an increase in the number of apprenticeship starts compared with the year 2010? The minimum rise is 60%; the maximum, in Bishop Auckland, is 143%.

[Chloe Smith]

I welcome those figures. My hon. Friend does well to point out how important apprenticeships are, and I congratulate him on offering one to a young person.

National policy, which the Minister will set out in more detail, ranges across the radical expansion of apprenticeships to the package of measures under the Youth Contract, which include incentives for employers to take on young people. Many organisations in the third sector also contribute enormously to encouraging young people throughout the country, some by means of formal contracts with the state. Campaign groups such as The Found Generation add to that. The Found Generation is youth-led and aims to tackle Britain’s youth unemployment and prevent a lost generation. It has recently published a report entitled “Practical Solutions to UK Youth Unemployment”, which I commend to hon. Members.

I will also mention briefly a couple of commissions with which I am involved. I chair the National Youth Agency’s commission into youth and enterprise, which is currently researching and surveying how we can all back young people to start out on their own.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. On youth enterprise, does she agree that schemes such as Young Enterprise have inspired many students over the years? However, it is vital to get entrepreneurs into schools. The entrepreneur Neil Westwood, who founded Magic Whiteboard and got funding from “Dragons’ Den”, goes into local schools in Worcester to give talks and inspire young people about what they can achieve by setting out on their own. Does she agree that that is a good model for others to consider?

[Chloe Smith]

I certainly do. It is incredibly important to have good role models available for young people. After all, by 2018 there will be more entrepreneurs in our labour market than public sector workers. Self-employment, entrepreneurship and micro-business are an exciting tectonic shift in our economy, and I am confident, from what I have seen with my own eyes, that young people will be at its heart.

I also contributed, as a commissioner, to the Industry and Parliament Trust’s recent report on youth skills. Local and regional policy is beginning to emerge through local enterprise partnerships. I particularly commend the detailed work done on skills by my LEP, New Anglia.

Policy is one thing, but local success does not rely on policy. It needs good leadership and a will to succeed, and it needs business, the community and parliamentarians to work together to help young people. I offer the example of Norwich for Jobs, a project that I founded. We set out in January 2015 to halve our city’s youth unemployment in two years. That meant reducing the rate of jobseeker’s allowance claimants from 2,000 down to 1,000. I am delighted to report that we have virtually achieved that, early. We expect new figures tomorrow to show that the youth unemployment rate in our city has dipped under 1,000. We have done it by asking businesses in our city to pledge to take on a young person. They sign a formal pledge and commit to a number of opportunities that they can provide over the months to come. We then connect young people with those opportunities through the jobcentre.

Essentially, we have focused the city community on a common goal. We have tried to provide a common platform for the many organisations that help young people in Norwich, and sought to work together to share intelligence and get young people into work with the employers who are making that commitment. In order to do that, I brought together a steering group, to which I pay tribute. It included Jobcentre Plus, City College Norwich, Norfolk chamber of commerce, the regional media group Archant—it runs information about the campaign in the Norwich Evening News and the Eastern Daily Press—and scores of employers, led by Howes Percival, a local law firm. The employers that have signed up range from tiny firms such as our one-man-band plumber, who is now a two-person band with an apprentice who does his books and social media, to large local firms such as the independent Norwich retailer Jarrold, which took on the 1,000th young person in our scheme.

National and international chains have got involved too, including Marks and Spencer and KLM Engineering. In all cases, we are seeking additionality, to use the technical term—the extra jobs or opportunities that those firms could pledge on top of their existing programmes. All those firms know the benefit of taking on a young person. They are securing the future of their business and helping the community at the same time.

We count against the Office for National Statistics figures every month, using a measure of the young people attending Norwich jobcentre. That allows us to cover the travel-to-work area. We track the paid opportunities that are offered—jobs and apprenticeships—but we also encourage the soft opportunities such as work experience and mentoring. So far, there has been a commitment to provide 1,098 jobs and apprenticeships, with 1,032 young people going into paid work as a result. I stress that we believe in good faith that this activity is all additional, because we are counting against the opportunities offered. We also know that the total Norwich register has dropped and we review on-flow and off-flow every month.

We have had the benefit of a superb employers’ panel, as well as a young people’s panel, to advise us, and we will work closely in the months ahead with our partners’ panel, which is made up of all the organisations that are often more specialist in terms of getting harder-to-help young people into work. We have enjoyed praise from His Royal Highness Prince Edward, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, Ministers and the Bishop of Norwich. We know that we have achieved a good thing but we are not complacent because there is so much more to do.

I will sum up my contribution, to allow other hon. Members to contribute. Youth unemployment is one of the most important social and economic issues of our time, and we can do things about it locally. This process is about the many individuals who are looking for the job they ardently need in order to secure that all-important first chance to take home a pay packet and to gain experience. Their families, their communities, local businesses and parliamentarians can step up to help. Although we want this debate to touch on education, welfare and enterprise policies, we hope that it will focus on constituency best practice, including pop-up job shops, social networks and local campaigns. We hope that hon. Members will share the good work being done in their locality and learn from others, so that each hon. Member leaves with a set of actions for the summer recess when the latest school, college and university leavers look for their own place in the world of which they can be proud.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

They have improved dramatically, which is thanks largely to the Welsh Assembly Government and very little to the Government in Westminster—if we are going to get partisan.

There have been some important contributions to the debate. It is an enormous shame that we have lost the Minister who was here at the beginning. I gather he has gone off to Downing street, and we will discover later whether he has been promoted as much as he would like, but I wish him well. I say gently to the Government that it is naughty not only to shift responsibility for answering the debate, which was originally intended for the DWP, to another Department, but then, when we are three quarters of the way through, to hoik the Minister off to get some new employment—taking him out of a debate on those affected by youth unemployment when he does not look old enough to be out of that category. I have not even mentioned the Minister who is about to reply, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson).

[Chloe Smith]

On that point, I will spare the Minister’s blushes by saying that we all think young people should be in Government positions. However, I should also note that Backbench Business Committee officials asked me which Ministry I would prefer to respond to the debate, and I said it would be helpful for a Minister from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to reply, because the debate is about employment, not unemployment.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, the Minister for Employment is in the Department for Work and Pensions. Be that as it may, let us get on to the matter in hand.

The truth is that the economy is improving and Opposition Members are as delighted about that as Government Members. I say that because many Opposition Members represent seats where what this country has suffered economically over the past few years is felt even more aggressively and painfully than it is in seats represented by Government Members. I know there are pockets of deprivation in every constituency in the land, but the honest truth is that many Opposition Members deal weekly and daily with multiple levels of deprivation, some historical and some new, so we know the pain. We are therefore delighted that the economy is improving, although I sometimes feel quite angry, and I think my constituents do too, when the Government seem complacent about the situation we are in.

The truth of the matter is that we still have the highest ever number of people in part-time employment who would like to be in full-time employment, many of them women. That is a significant challenge, because the issue then is how people in work pay the bills. Under this Government, for the first time ever the problem is that the majority of those living in poverty are people in work. That must be a cause of shame for all of us. Youth unemployment is still stubbornly high. I fully accept that the numbers have fallen, and they have fallen in my constituency. However, they reached an absolute peak last September, and there is still a considerable way to go. I will talk about that a little more later.

I am glad that we have a flexible labour market, but I often worry that the flexibility is all on the part of those who are employed, and that the employer can sometimes exploit that to such a degree that there is unfairness in the market. That means that whether someone is on a zero-hours contract without wanting to be, or is on an exclusive zero-hours contract, or does not have enough hours because the number they are given depends entirely on whether they get on with the boss rather than on a contract, their working conditions will be kept pretty miserable—let alone the problems of low pay.

At the moment some 853,000 young people aged 24 or under are unemployed. Although the figures have fallen, the ratio of young unemployed people to adult unemployed people is considerably higher in this country than for all our competitors. In the UK there are 3.6 young unemployed people for every unemployed adult; in the EU as a whole there are 2.4 and in Germany just 1.6 unemployed young people to every unemployed adult. Many hon. Members cite Spain and Greece, where youth unemployment is high, but we should not underestimate the problem in this country.

As several of my hon. Friends have mentioned—not least my hon. Friends the Members for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) who chairs the all-party group on youth unemployment—the recession in the UK has hit the young hardest. All the economic statistics show that they have had a harder time of it than anyone else, and today, although I do not suppose that anyone will notice because the great reshuffle will obscure it all, prices are still rising 2.5 times faster than wages. That has a dramatic effect on people who are on low wages, because they spend a far higher percentage of their wages on the basics of life such as eating and heating. In the past five years, the employment rate has fallen faster among 20-year-olds than any other age group. Real pay has also fallen fastest for the young. We must factor in housing costs and the state of the housing market. They were part of the problem in Spain and Greece: the housing market fell apart, contributing to high youth unemployment. Because of the cost of housing, young people have problems with personal social mobility and moving from parts of the country with no employment to places where there is employment.

We should never forget how those things affect people, including their long-term health. A young person who has been out of work for more than six months is twice as likely as anyone else to be taking antidepressants, and anyone who is out of work for six months or longer is six times more likely to have a mental health problem of some kind, which might make it difficult for them to get back into the labour market. People move further and further from the labour market. One of the most depressing statistics that I saw this year was from the Prince’s Trust Macquarie youth index, which suggested that 750,000 young people in this country said they had nothing to live for.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman just said that it was a sale that nobody wanted. It was in his manifesto—it was a commitment of the last Government. They are shaking—[Interruption.] They worked so hard, but they failed to do it. This coalition Government privatised Royal Mail, created thousands of new shareholders and have a great business working for Britain. We have seen it all from Labour this week. They are advertising for fresh ideas. People around the right hon. Gentleman are fighting like ferrets in a sack. Their top adviser—get this, Mr Speaker—is called Arnie and he has gone to America, but unlike Arnie he has said “I’m not coming back.” They are warring, they are weak and they do not have a plan.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

Q2. It is as quick to go 225 miles over land and sea from here to Brussels as it is to go half the distance on the train to Norwich. Does my right hon. Friend agree that East Anglia needs investment in better, faster rail infrastructure and that the Norwich in 90 taskforce will bring benefits to businesses and passengers in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and others for the work they are doing on the Norwich in 90 taskforce. This is a very important project. I welcome the interest shown by business leaders, local authorities and enterprise partnerships. East Anglia is one of the fastest-growing parts of our country and it has world-class companies and universities. Better transport will support and bolster that growth and I look forward to the taskforce report that I know she is working on. I hope that it will be used to shape the specification for the long rail franchise, which should start in 2016.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 29 January.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Chloe Smith]

Figures now show that the UK economy is growing at its fastest rate since 2007, which is further proof that our plan is working. But there is a choice: stick with it, or abandon a plan that is delivering a better economic future and jobs for my constituents in Norwich North. Does the Prime Minister agree that the long-term decisions we are taking matter most for the future of Britain and our children? After all, who is an economic plan for if not the next generation?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: that should be the test of the decisions we are taking—will they secure a better future, more stability and more peace of mind for our children and grandchildren? Last week we saw the biggest number of new jobs in a quarter since records began, and this week we see the fastest growth in our economy for six years. There should be absolutely no complacency. The job is nowhere near complete, but if we stick to our long-term economic plan we can see our country rise and our people rise too.

Royal British Legion (Norwich)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Miss Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I thank you, Mr Hollobone, for chairing this debate. This is an important topic, even though we have not yet been joined by too many other colleagues. I have had the pleasure of working with constituents in Norwich for the Royal British Legion since I was first elected. On Saturday, I will be doing what I have done for many years: joining Roy and Val Hill of the Sprowston Royal British Legion branch in their well-regimented but good-natured poppy appeal at the largest local branch of Tesco. I am sure that other hon. Members will have similar engagements in their constituency.

On Remembrance Sunday, I usually join hundreds of my constituents at Norwich city hall for wreath-laying and the “Last Post”, and then in Norwich cathedral. In the afternoon, I usually take part in a parade down Yarmouth road with the Thorpe St Andrew branch, led by the indefatigable Roy Robson and the town mayor. However, this year I unwisely chose the day before Remembrance Sunday on which to get married. I hope my constituents will forgive my absence this time.

In Norwich, the work of the legion is coming to the fore in an unfortunate way, which is poor timing, as this is the month before November. I want to use this debate to discuss the ways that we can best support this long-lived and courageous organisation. The Royal British Legion is of course the UK’s leading armed forces charity. It provides practical, emotional and financial support to all members of the British armed forces, past and present, and their families. Secondly, it actively campaigns to improve lives, and it safeguards the military covenant between the nation and its armed forces. By the bye, I am pleased that the Government have published that covenant, setting out the relationship between the nation, the state and the armed forces. It recognises that the whole nation has a moral obligation to members of the armed forces and to their families, and it establishes how they can expect to be treated. Community covenants are also being signed across the country, bringing military and civilian communities together.

Armed forces have long been based in Norfolk. RAF Marham, for example, has recently been the focus of an enormous community campaign, orchestrated by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). The Norfolk covenant builds on those relationships and local support and rightly aims to provide a more consistent approach.

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The Royal British Legion operates in Ilford North as well as Norwich North. Does she agree that the work it does for the people who have served our country so well, and who should always be remembered, is irreplaceable, and that we should cherish such a great organisation and help it in every way we can?

[Miss Smith]

I certainly do. I am confident that my hon. Friend, like me and many other Members, wants to see the Royal British Legion succeed in Ilford, Norwich and across the country. I will come on to that, as well as how we might mark the centenary of world war one next year. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us how his region will mark that event.

Let me return to the legion’s purposes. It also organises the poppy appeal. It runs one of the UK’s largest membership organisations, and it is recognised as the nation’s custodian of remembrance. In summary, its mission is to provide welfare, comradeship, representation and remembrance for the armed forces community. We all pay tribute to this impressive and durable organisation. We are talking about a crucial cause, and it is given voice and action by many members and volunteers who have shown the highest courage in their service to this country.

We all want the Royal British Legion to be a strong organisation. As I have mentioned, next year sees the beginning of the world war one centenary commemoration. Another important event is the Normandy Veterans Association’s 70 years commemoration, which is championed in my constituency by some most wonderful veterans who are passionate about seeing it done well. All that is important work that we want the legion to sustain for today’s and tomorrow’s service people and their friends.

It is clear, however, that the legion faces challenges. Its accounts suggest that it runs at a deficit, and it has embarked on a major programme of modernisation and change called the “pathway for growth”. Its aim is to make the legion more visible, more relevant and more accessible to those members of the armed forces community who may require help, advice and support at any stage of their lives. I suspect that this is where the rubber hits the road. The Jubilee hall, which serves the Norwich branch and is a fine community hall, faces closure. The head of clubs and trusts at the headquarters says:

“The primary duty of the trustees in this case is to ensure that the best value is obtained from the assets placed in their trust in order that they can provide the maximum support to the objects of their trust. It was accordingly decided that the better option was to seek to sell the property for the best value which can be obtained from the open market.”

The local branch heard that news in August, and I sombrely noted that in one of their first phone calls afterwards, they contacted me as the local Member of Parliament. After two months, several public meetings, a local newspaper campaign by the Norwich Evening News, a generous underwriting offer from a local businessman, and some initial commercial negotiations, I am raising the story in Parliament, and I also have a petition from 617 local residents, which I shall present next week to the director-general of the Royal British Legion. I will explain to him the love that we in Norwich have for our Jubilee hall. First, it is the most visible base of the legion in the area. It is the size of a sports hall and it is emblazoned with the wording “the Royal British Legion” in brass letters a foot high. It is terrible to lose such an emblem.

Secondly, it is more terrible to lose a supportive and friendly establishment for many legion members who depend on it. It provides a warm drop-in for those who want it. Every table is neatly decorated with tinsel or flowers, depending on the season, and it provides a fuller space when that is wanted as well. Thirdly, it is the kind of community hall that already has 500 bookings for next year. I would be interested to know of any community venue that can rival that. In fact, now I know where all the zumba classes in this country are taking place; they are taking place in the Jubilee hall in Norwich, if not in Ilford.

That wide spectrum of activities taking place in the hall is something of which we can be proud. The acting chairman and his team of volunteers at the Norwich city Royal British Legion branch are doing their utmost to achieve a sustainable business after some instability in recent years.

Last Thursday, a “save Jubilee hall” public meeting passed a unanimous vote to keep the hall open, supporting the setting up of a charitable organisation to take on the building. Members and non-members alike of all generations expressed great anxiety about the danger of closure, and wanted to bring back the building to its former glory. Local man Martin Wyatt has offered to underwrite the finances required for such work, and deserves thanks for his generosity. He and the legion committee are working hard to make the transformation a reality. They have secured free legal advice through a local law firm, so they plan to lodge charitable status as soon as possible.

I am pleased—I am sure that the Minister will join me in my pleasure—that the local Labour councillors see the value in the Localism Act 2011, and we all encourage the local authority to list the hall as an asset of community value; that could give us six months’ grace before any sale. Volunteers are delighted to have received a kind letter from the secretary of Her Majesty the Queen, who is of course the patron of the Royal British Legion.

Naturally, the next step is more commercial negotiations, which are not the business of Parliament. However, the hall was built with local funds, and the committee intends to maintain it for its original purpose, though it will broaden its remit to encompass fully the local community. As Mr Wyatt has said,

“we look forward to a completion of this transfer, whether by lease or sale, as soon as possible, and for a stress-free and happy running of Jubilee Hall for years to come”.

It is my hope that by raising this issue today, I have done a little bit to remind us in this great institution of Parliament about the work and the standing of that other great institution, the Royal British Legion.

Here comes the crunch, however. The legion must not leave its members behind; it must not neglect the people who make it a great institution. Now is the time for the legion to listen to its members and to its friends in the wider community. If its aim is to make the legion more visible, more relevant and more accessible, then it should listen and be visible in the Norwich community, and work constructively with local volunteers. We are all behind the legion and its wonderful volunteers, and we do not want the legion to waste that good will.

I said earlier that I would return to the topic of the year ahead. As you know, Mr Hollobone, 2014 will mark a momentous milestone in British history—100 years since the outbreak of world war one. The centenary offers a special opportunity to commemorate not the war and the bloodshed, but the dedicated men and women who sacrificed so much to protect the United Kingdom. It also presents a very important chance to educate a new generation of young people about the war, to ensure that the lessons of that extraordinary time are not lost.

As the Minister will no doubt remind us, the Prime Minister has laid out the Government’s plans to mark the centenary. He has announced that support will be available for projects and initiatives, large and small, in local communities across the UK, in the form of Heritage Lottery Fund grants. I hope to work with councils, heritage groups and charities such as the Royal British Legion to mark the centenary locally. It is a matter of shame, I am afraid to say, that the Labour administration at Norfolk county council has rejected that idea, telling me that it has a rather full diary at the moment. It would be a matter of sadness, and downright discourteous to veterans and serving members of the armed forces, if the Labour administration at county hall did not have the time, inclination or gumption to do this job properly.

I turn back to the matter at hand. I will leave time today for colleagues to express, perhaps, their interest in the work of the legion, and for the Minister perhaps to tell us a little more not only about the commemoration plans but about the way that he works incredibly hard in his brief to support charities. Perhaps he can suggest further ways in which the Royal British Legion can do its job and be supported strongly from inside this great Parliament.

In conclusion, I support the Royal British Legion in Norwich. I passionately want it to succeed for those whom the charity serves: veterans of past campaigns; those yet to fight; and, of course, those whom we remember as fallen, and of whom we will say again in November,

“Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.”

We all are friends and supporters of the Royal British Legion. My final message today is to those at the legion’s headquarters, if they are listening. I say to them, “Please remember your local members and friends, and save the Jubilee hall in Norwich.”

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

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

Amendment 45 is a genuine attempt to address at least some of the problem, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of another issue. I am a big fan of Babcock, a major employer of my constituents and his; some 3,500 people work at Rosyth dockyard. The Government believe that simply listing a meeting with Mr John Gardner, the public affairs director for Babcock, would somehow show transparency. However, as the hon. Gentleman and I know, Babcock has six or seven significant arms, including its nuclear engineering division, which I suspect is of particular interest to him; its defence business, which is of interest to my constituency; the rail division; and the facilities management division. It would not be clear to anybody what such a meeting would be about and what transparency there would be.

Let me bring my remarks to a timely close. Our amendment 18 would sort the issue out in a constructive, well-drafted manner. We are grateful for the assistance of the able Clerks upstairs.

Vicars would not be covered; the Church of England’s public affairs team would be covered, but not the individual vicar, as they would not be paid to lobby. Parishioners would not be covered either and nor would someone giving evidence to a Select Committee. That would impinge on parliamentary privilege, which we hope the Government accept should not be a matter for the courts. We also recognise that someone responding to a Government request for information should not be covered.

I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House and the Minister have listened closely and take away helpful advice from both sides and that the issue can be dealt with in this place, rather than being sorted out yet again in the other place.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)]

I rise to address the Opposition amendments and to speak in favour of those tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I shall also address other points raised in the debate.

I begin with the amendments from Opposition Front Benchers, which would replace “consultant lobbying” with “professional lobbying” throughout part 1. The amendments define “professional lobbying” as undertaking lobbying

“on behalf of a client, or…on behalf of an employer.”

Amendment 18 provides a list of exemptions from the Opposition’s broad definition of lobbying outlined in amendments 19, 20 and 21.

The Opposition’s intention is clear, but unfortunately their drafting lacks similar clarity. They have diligently—some might say single-mindedly or simple-mindedly—substituted the term “consultant lobbying” with “professional lobbying”, but notwithstanding the years of experience demonstrated by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), their concept of professional lobbying appears not to have been sufficiently thoroughly considered. It shocks me that after 13 years of thinking about these things, they have brought forward so little.

The Government’s proposals for a register are designed to address the specific problem that we have identified: it is not always clear whose interests are represented by consultant lobbyists when they meet Ministers and permanent secretaries.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Association of Professional Political Consultants itself accepts the amendments that would replace “consultant lobbyist” with “professional lobbyist”.

[Miss Smith]

I am delighted to have taken my hon. Friend’s intervention because I will come on in detail to why those amendments are deficient. I have no doubt that they are supported by others who have made their voices known in this debate, but that does not make them a solution to a specifically identified problem. Indeed, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife kindly confirmed that our Bill does what it sets out to do.

The context is that this Government have for the first time made it clear to the public exactly who Ministers and permanent secretaries meet. The Opposition appear to be trying to solve a different problem, but they have failed clearly to articulate what it is. What exactly is the rationale for a register that requires the local vicar to sign up as a professional lobbyist? The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) seems to think that that is okay. However, if this how Labour Members think they might get back in touch, they will not achieve it by doing this, and it is rather weak for them to think so. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife rejects the idea that the local vicar might need to sign up as a professional, but he ought to read his papers more closely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miss Smith]

Once.

[Thomas Docherty]

I had better make it good, then. The Minister said that the amendments are badly drafted—obviously, Mr Patrick and his team are excellent—but they have been drafted with the support of the PRCA, the APPC, the CIPR and the ALT. What does she know that everyone in the industry, on both sides of the argument, does not know?

[Miss Smith]

I made it clear at the outset that the Government are seeking to address a slightly different and very well-defined problem. I do not have the years of experience of working as a lobbyist that the hon. Gentleman appears to be advocating I should have, but it is clear to me that a robust definition of “lobbying” is essential to the integrity of any register. The amendments tabled by Opposition Front Benchers suggest that they have struggled and ultimately failed to meet the prerequisite for successful lobbying regulation even on their own terms.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Minister clarify who is included and who is excluded? Can she confirm that in the case of News Corp trying to lobby on the full ownership of BSkyB, none of the senior executives from the company would be included in the register, none of the public affairs people employed full time by the company would be included, the legal company that it used to do much of its lobbying would not be included, and nor, for that matter, would the public affairs company be included, because most of the work that it does is general communications? According to this Bill, nobody would have been included in the register in that instance, which many thought was profoundly corrupt.

[Miss Smith]

The hon. Gentleman fails to take into account what this Government have done to ensure that Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ diaries are transparent and the reforms made since then to ensure that meetings and contacts with news editors are also reported. Labour did nothing about that in its 13 years. It is time that we did do something, and that is what we are bringing before the Committee. I urge right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches to withdraw their lead amendment and the others that sit with it.

Amendments 9 and 48 on advice and meeting facilitation would alter the definition of lobbying provided by clause 2 so that it included the facilitation of meetings and provision of advice in relation to lobbying. Let me repeat that the Government have been clear that the register is intended to address a specific problem—that it is not always clear whose interests are being represented by consultant lobbyists when they meet Ministers and permanent secretaries. We want to ensure that that that level of information can be looked at by citizens, not by the Ministers and permanent secretaries themselves, whom I credit with enough wiles and wit to know who they are meeting.

The register is intended further to enhance transparency within the context of this far more open approach to government than has previously existed. The inclusion of the provision of advice in the definition of lobbying will not necessarily assist in the specific task that we are doing in this regard. I acknowledge that the work of many so-called lobbyists includes the provision of advice and the setting up of meetings, but once those meetings take place it is already clear to the public whose interests are being represented. I am therefore not persuaded of the value of extending the definition to the provision of advice, and I urge hon. Members to withdraw these amendments.

Amendments 8 and 27, which deal with in-house lobbying, would amend clause 2 to remove the term

“on behalf of another person”

from the definition of lobbying. I think that that is intended to bring with it the effect that the register be extended to apply to in-house lobbyists in addition to consultant lobbyists. As I have repeatedly reminded the Opposition and the Committee, the steps we have taken to enhance transparency at these previously opaque levels have already revealed the interaction between Ministers and external organisations. We proactively publish details of all Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ meetings. It is therefore difficult to appreciate what value a register of in-house lobbyists would provide. It could merely duplicate the information that we already publish. Of course, we do publish that information. Will Opposition Front Benchers confirm in this debate what they have failed to confirm before—whether they would publish their own meetings and diaries? They have consistently failed to meet that challenge, and that is weak.

We have been clear, instead, that the register is intended further to extend the transparency we have introduced by addressing the specific problem in hand. The Opposition have failed to articulate what problem would be addressed by introducing a register of in-house lobbyists. Such a register may have been of use in relation to previous Administrations whose engagement with external organisations was less open, but it is not necessary now. The Canadian system, which does cover in-house lobbyists, costs about £3 million a year to operate. That system was deemed necessary because the Canadians do not publish details of Ministers’ meetings—but, quite simply, we do. As such, we have designed a register and made proposals accordingly. I urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.

Amendment 52 would amend schedule 1 to remove the de minimis exemption that we included in paragraph 3 to exclude those who undertake only occasional lobbying from the requirement to register as consultant lobbyists. This is covered in Government amendments that I will deal with later. I acknowledge the work of the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on this. I assure hon. Members that the Government are keen to listen to the concerns expressed by his Committee and others that the exemption in paragraph 3 would perhaps exclude large multidisciplinary firms. That was never our intention, and our amendment to the paragraph will clarify that. As amended, the exemption would exclude only those who happen to communicate with the Government in a manner incidental to their normal professional activities. Multidisciplinary firms that run consultant lobbying operations and lobby in a manner that is not incidental to their other activities will be required to register. I can therefore reassure hon. Members that the amended exemption provides a necessary and appropriate exclusion for those who undertake only incidental lobbying, but it would not be enjoyed by multidisciplinary firms with active and substantive consultant lobbying wings.

Let me turn to a pair of Opposition amendments that are in this group but, intriguingly, were not spoken about—amendments 25 and 26. They would entirely remove the exemption that we have included in paragraph 7 to ensure that the normal activity of altruistic organisations such as charities is excluded from the scope of the Bill. We all know, of course, that the Charities Commission already imposes strict rules governing how charities lobby, and there is also a specific and onerous regime governing charitable status. Despite that, the Opposition want to remove the exemption for bodies such as charities and require them to register. Interestingly, though, they are not seeking to remove the exemption for the normal activity of trade. The Opposition are thus proposing that charities register as professional lobbyists in relation to their normal activity, but that trade unions do not. I urge hon. Members not to press the amendments.

New clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), closely resembles the proposals made by the various industry representative bodies. I have had some time to look into the detail of such proposals, and I would like to put on record a couple of the issues raised by such an approach. The new clause would redefine “consultant lobbying” such that the activity must take place in the course of business for the purpose of “influencing government” or

“advising others how to influence government”.

Under this definition, a huge number of individuals and organisations would be subject to the provisions relating to the register. Furthermore, the definition expands what is meant by consultant lobbying to include the provision of advice to others seeking to influence Government. I do not understand how the problem under discussion would be solved by requiring the registration of those who advise others—I have already addressed that point. If people are made more effective in communicating their messages, that is a matter for them. Of course, it must be made transparent to everybody who receives those communications who they represent, which is what the Bill seeks to address.

The new clause goes on to provide an exceptionally wide definition of those who would have to register. Anyone who attempts to influence, or provide advice on influencing, every level of government—local, central and devolved, parliamentarians and their staff, and public authorities—would be required to register. This includes those working in a charitable, not-for-profit capacity and those in a voluntary position. The new clause includes a number of exemptions and it would be worthwhile exploring them.

[Mrs Main]

My concern is that the Bill is so narrowly defined it is not worth having unless we expand it, although part of me does not wish to expand it at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) have said that it is influence of those at lower levels, not of the permanent secretary or the Minister, that is most important, but that is not captured in the Bill and that is what concerns many of us.

[Miss Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for rising to make that point, which is valuable and is addressed by some of the amendments.

The Bill is straightforward about those who should be covered by our register. I repeat that we are being very specific about the transparency we are seeking to achieve. We regard Ministers and permanent secretaries as the key decision makers. I cannot state that much more simply.

New clause 5 brings to mind some unusual examples that we should consider in terms of public interest. A volunteer playgroup manager would have to register under the new clause if they wrote to their local authority about dog fouling near a church and requesting that it cleans it up. A charity that wants to inspire underprivileged children through sport would have to register in order to ask the mayor for permission to use a playing field. Furthermore, the founder of a small business who wants to write to their MP to complain that their waste collection is substandard would have to register as a lobbyist in order to do so. I do not think that those are good examples.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miss Smith]

No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already and I must conclude, because there is plenty of work before the Committee tonight.

I have reservations about new clause 5, although I respect the serious work that Members have done with lobbying representatives. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans not to press new clause 5.

Amendment 161, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), would make all lobbying businesses, not just those that lobby on behalf of third parties, liable for registration. As I have said, it is difficult to appreciate what value a register of in-house lobbyists would provide. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.

Let me turn to the Government amendments in this group. It is clear that they have been spectacularly misunderstood by Labour Front Benchers. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who laughs loudest, claims to care for small businesses but appears not to have read the papers in preparation for this debate.

Amendments 76, 77, 81 to 85, 92 and 96 to 98 are designed to exclude the smallest organisations from the requirement to register as consultant lobbyists. They do so by amending the definition of consultant lobbying such that it includes only those who are registered under the Value Added Tax Act 1994, which I am sure the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) has read in great detail.

The Government are committed to ensuring that small businesses are not subject to disproportionate burdens. An exclusion for those small businesses that are not VAT registered from the requirement to register as consultant lobbyists will ensure that whatever burden may be associated with registration will not be placed on them. The VAT registration represents a clear threshold.

[Chi Onwurah]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Miss Smith]

Would the hon. Lady like to explain VAT registration?

[Chi Onwurah]

It would be a great pleasure to explain VAT registration, but not at this point in time. Is the hon. Lady saying that all companies that pay VAT registration are large companies, or is she acknowledging that many small businesses are registered for VAT?

[Miss Smith]

I am suggesting a clear, simple and recognised threshold to provide a guide for where to put a de minimis provision.

Amendment 77 will alter clause 2 to include the registration of a person under the VAT Act as a further requirement to be satisfied in the definition of carrying on the business of consultant lobbying. That will exclude those who are not VAT registered from the requirement to register as a consultant lobbyist.

Amendment 82 will remove the provision in clause 22 exempting those who are not VAT registered from the requirement to pay the subscription charge relating to entry on the register.

Amendment 83 will provide that regulations could be made allowing HMRC to share its records relating to registration under the VAT Act with a registrar. Clearly, that is an important resource to assist the registrar. Associated amendments make the necessary refinements to the references to employees throughout this part of the Bill. The exclusion of those who are not VAT registered from the requirement to register means that a number of references to employees should be adjusted to recognise that employees can never be VAT registered for their employer, a fact that I fear the hon. Member for Hemsworth knew nothing about.

Another group of Government amendments relates to the definition of incidental lobbying.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but there is a considerable amount of noise coming mainly from behind the Chair, mostly from people who have not paid any attention whatsoever to the debate. The Committee wishes to hear not only the Minister, but the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman in her reply, which has yet to follow.

[Miss Smith]

Thank you, Sir Roger. I will be as quick as I can in making a few points about Government amendments.

It has always been the Government’s intention that those who communicate with Government in a manner incidental to their normal professional activity should not be required to register as consultant lobbyists. These are not the people or organisations that this register is intended to capture. Let me be clear that it is our intention that multidisciplinary firms that run consultant lobbying operations and that lobby in a manner that is not merely incidental to their other activities should be captured. These are the exact professional consultant lobbyists that this register is intended to capture.

We have listened to those who suggested that the exemption in paragraph 3 of schedule 1 was too broad and should be refined, including the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Our amendments 91, 93, 94 and 95 will refine that paragraph by substituting the insubstantial proportion test with one that focuses on incidental lobbying. Specifically, paragraph 3 will provide that a person does not carry on the business of consultant lobbying if they are part of a non-lobbying organisation or if the lobbying communication they make is incidental to their normal non-lobbying activity.

In conclusion, we are proposing not a fully blown regulator for the industry, but a solution to an identified problem. I am sure that Members throughout the Committee will have read the US federal lobbying regulation manual, “The Lobbying Manual”, which runs to 894 pages. That is what we wish to avoid. I therefore oppose various amendments but support those tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I look forward to hearing what the Opposition think they can do better now than they did for the past 13 years.

[Chi Onwurah]

It is testimony to the ineptitude of the Government that, after months of delay, they have introduced a lobbying Bill that covers just 1% of lobbyists and still manages to be full of loopholes.

We have heard a lot today about the importance of lobbying in our democracy. We have heard that it is nothing to be ashamed of and that transparency is a good thing that is welcomed by the industry. There is a consensus on both sides of the Committee about that, or so I had thought until I read the Bill and the Government amendments. I was entirely baffled by many of the paragraphs and sub-paragraphs in the clause and the accompanying schedule. It is plain that the Government were no clearer, because they tabled their own set of amendments. However, those amendments —[Interruption.] I have read the amendments, despite what the Minister says from a sedentary position, and rather than clearing up the confusion that the Government have created, they create more confusion. In this Bill, it is difficult to distinguish between what is the result of poor drafting and what is the result of poor judgment.

Ministers appear to have created a loophole whereby the vast majority of the lobbying industry can avoid having to register at all. Even the current voluntary registers capture more of the industry than the proposals would. The Deputy Leader of the House estimated in this debate that 350 companies would be caught by the Bill. George Kidd, the acting chair of the UK Public Affairs Council, has estimated that 100 would be caught. At least 15,000 companies operate as lobbyists, so it is clear that the Bill captures a minute proportion of them.

I find the Minister’s assertions that the Bill will not have an impact on the voluntary registers hard to believe. The Government talk about the great impact of regulation and law-making, but they seem to be saying that this Bill, which defines lobbying—it defines it badly, but it defines it nevertheless—will have no impact whatever on the existing lobbying registers. They have very little respect for the impact that the Bill will have, intended or otherwise.

I urge the Government to listen to their own Back Benchers, who have said that the Bill does not reflect an understanding of what lobbying is. The Bill has also been described as a net that is badly drawn and an albatross. I agree with the Financial Times, which said today, less figuratively but equally accurately, that the Bill is “not good lawmaking”. The whole industry agrees with that, rejects the Government proposals and supports the intent of the Opposition amendments. That is why we will press amendments 2 and 9 to the vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

I do not feel competent to give an accurate and helpful answer to the hon. Lady’s point. She and those with a different view should participate in pre-legislative scrutiny and put their arguments and reasons to the Government, who then make a choice—they will execute, they will decide. At the moment, there is execution and decision without participation and consultation; it is blindfolded government not using Parliament as the effective partner it should be.

Alexandra Runswick, the director of Unlock Democracy, made points about the depth of the information required. Again, we go for black or white—either people want everything or do not want anything, but the truth is that we should have reasonable amounts of information that everyone feels is appropriate. Having discussed the issue with all parts of the lobbying industry and those interested in it, we got to a position of consensus. For example, Unlock Democracy said:

“We are not expecting a transcript of the meeting, but what policy area it is that is being lobbied on. There are already individual MPs who publish their diaries and say, for example, ‘I met Unlock Democracy about the Lobbying Bill.’ That is the level of information that we are looking at—the policy that is being lobbied about, not the exact information that was shared with the person whom you are lobbying.”

That led my Select Committee to table amendment 56, which we felt was appropriate, proportionate and helpful to the Government. Yet we are discussing it at the fag end of the sitting and many other issues will not even get an airing.

We suggested that the information that the register requires to be listed should be expanded to include the subject matter and purpose of lobbying when that is not already clear from a company’s name. To be clear, that should not involve the disclosure of detailed information about the content of the meeting, just a broad outline of the subject matter and intended outcome. For example, “Subject matter—lobbying; purpose—change the Transparency of Lobbying Bill.”

We also suggested in our report that there should be a financial threshold above which companies are required to provide information about the subject matter and purpose of lobbying. That is why we framed, as a Select Committee, an amendment that we felt was reasonable and helpful to the House and the Government.

I will conclude my remarks, as others wish to contribute. At the end of the day, we are trying to improve the Bill. It is a sad fact that if the House of Commons is not treated properly and if the process is cavalier and one in which Parliament’s view is neglected or not even regarded with respect, we sell the pass. When the public want an effectively lobbying Bill, we say, “We’re not even capable of discussing most of the groups of amendments on the agenda tonight.” As a House of Commons, we pass our responsibility over to the other place. That is not satisfactory to anyone in the House of any political description who feels that their role is to hold the Government to account and scrutinise legislation. If we do not do the job, the second Chamber will fill the vacuum. Any self-respecting Member of Parliament will feel that that is not a place where we should be.

[Miss Chloe Smith]

I want to respond to a couple of the amendments before we wind up. Amendments 3 and 4 would alter clause 1 and provide that lobbying was prohibited unless a lobbyist had both registered and signed up to the register’s code of conduct. Amendment 42 would establish a civil sanction in relation to breaches of the code of conduct. New clause 1 provides that the registrar must produce a code. However, there is little detail about what provision such a code would make other than that it would forbid inappropriate financial relations between registered persons and parliamentarians. The amendments reveal that, as we perhaps knew already, the Opposition intend not only a register of lobbyists but a full-blown regulator of the industry.

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Lady says that the amendment makes no provision for a description of what might be in the code of conduct. I gently say that that seems a bit presumptuous. The point is that there needs to be wide discussion with the industry and those who watch its activities about what should be in a code of conduct. Why will she not allow provision for a code of conduct and then ensure that there is proper discussion across the industry on what might be in it?

[Miss Smith]

It is interesting that the Opposition have spent a good four hours telling us to do what the industry wants and are now advocating something that the industry does not want, which is a fully statutory code of conduct. I will make further arguments as to why there is a problem with putting all this on to the statute book.

I have already dealt with what the Government are trying to do through the Bill, which is to shine the light of transparency on a specific element of the industry. In doing so, we recognise the industry’s efforts to improve lobbying practice by introducing its own codes of conduct, and we are confident that that would continue; we have no reason to believe that it would not. It is right that those codes then promote the ethical behaviour that we need for the integrity—

[Mr Thomas]

rose—

[Miss Smith]

It might be helpful if the hon. Gentleman allowed me to make a few points in response to his intervention.

While such codes contain laudable principles and good practice guidance, their translation into statute is not feasible or practical. The experience of regulators in other jurisdictions clearly shows that statutory codes of conduct for lobbying can be unworkable and unenforceable. That is what I seek to guard against in opposing the amendment. The question then hangs in the air of what provisions the Opposition would expect to see in a code of conduct. They have provided very little indication other than that it will, rather intriguingly, forbid any inappropriate financial relations between registered persons and parliamentarians. Can the Opposition give us an example of what an inappropriate relationship might entail? Can the hon. Gentleman explain whether it would not already be prohibited by Parliament’s own code of conduct or laws on bribery and corruption? He is silent, which is rather worrying. This is another example of the rather lazy and imprecise draftsmanship that we have seen from the Opposition today, and that is not good enough. He does not provide any notion about how the code’s provisions might be enforced and what resources the registrar would be required to use to monitor it. The Opposition are setting the registrar an impossible task in expecting them to do that kind of thing. I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

The Opposition’s amendment 31 would alter paragraph 3 of schedule 2 to provide that the registrar’s appointment must be approved by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I think I heard its Chairman say that this was a new job that he had not necessarily asked for.

[Mr Thomas]

I intervened to give the hon. Lady an opportunity to correct the record. It is not true that the whole lobbying industry does not support a code of conduct, although it is certainly true that a number of people want a hybrid version. However, many within the industry do support a code of conduct. She is yet to explain why a code of conduct is not necessary.

[Miss Smith]

I have just gone to the lengths of providing the hon. Gentleman with an argument, with international examples, as to why making something statutory from a voluntary position can often be unfeasible. That argument stands. In fact, my reference to the industry relates particularly to the APPC.

The Opposition’s amendment 43 would amend the reference to the setting of the subscription charge from requiring the Minister to “seek to” recover the full costs to requiring them to recover the full cost. That seems unnecessary. I can assure the whole Committee that we are well aware of the importance of ensuring that the register is fully funded by the industry in order to protect the taxpayer. As I said earlier, the Canadian register costs £3 million to run. The Opposition have not fully considered how they would ensure that such costs would be recovered from, no doubt, the charities, playgroup volunteers and vicars whom they intend to register.

Amendments 136 and 138, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), demonstrate his desire to secure the independence of the registrar. I share that desire and hope that I have reassured him. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) refer to this point as well. It is important that the registrar will be independent of both the lobbying industry and the Government and will have a clear remit to operate independently. Ministers will be able to dismiss the registrar only if they are satisfied that he or she is unable, unwilling or unfit to perform the functions of the office. I urge hon. Members not to press amendments 136 and 138.

[Lady Hermon]

I have listened carefully and intently to the Minister. Where in the Bill is the independence of the registrar guaranteed? What justification can the Minister have for not putting it in black and white on the face of the Bill? I ask her, please, not to give reassurances that will be reported in Hansard. It should be put in the Bill so that people outside have a guarantee of independence.

[Miss Smith]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s arguments in support of amendment 136. I regard the Bill and the explanations we have given as sufficient, but I am willing to continue to review the issue.

Amendments 34, 36, 37 and 152 would require lobbyists to disclose financial information. Amendment 56 would also alter the information requirements in clause 4 to require the disclosure of the purpose and subject of any lobbing. We have been very clear that the objective of the register is the identification of the interests that are being represented by consultant lobbying firms. Lobbyists should therefore be required to disclose their clients. We are not persuaded that the burden that would be imposed, on both the industry and the regulator, of requiring further information is justified by the fairly limited insight it will provide. It is not a proportionate approach to the problem identified. I urge hon. Members not to press the amendments.

The Opposition’s amendment 40 would alter clause 10 on self-incrimination and limit the information that persons are required to provide in response to an information notice. This unclear and oddly drafted amendment tops off the evening. Its unwelcome effect would be that, in response to an information notice, a person would not be required to provide any self-incriminating information including any offence committed in relation to the register. It would therefore entirely undermine the enforcement regime relating to the register. The registrar could still seek to investigate registration breaches using information notices, but the result would be that, where there had been such a breach, the lobbyist would be entitled to refuse to provide any information and only lobbyists that had not breached it would be required to provide information. I urge the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) not to press that crowning glory of an amendment.

The purpose of new clauses 2 and 7 is unclear. They appear to require that, if a registered professional lobbyist is appointed to a role in Government or to work for a Government party, their appointment should be scrutinised by a Committee and restrictions placed on their activities. I ask the Opposition: who should such a Committee consist of and what would be their remit? What restrictions would be placed on the activity of such an appointee? The proposed new clauses clearly do not provide the answers. The Opposition are weak and muddled, and I urge them not to press the new clauses.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Business is proceeding in such a fashion that we may not even get to the very important questions of parliamentary privilege addressed by amendment 164, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). The fact is that this is about this House of Commons. It is incredible that we should not be able to discuss the way in which this Bill interacts with the privilege question.

[Miss Smith]

I am exceedingly grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it gives me the opportunity to look down the selection list. I am grateful to the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, who has worked with parliamentary counsel to produce amendment 151. The Government would like to support that amendment tonight because we believe that that important area of the Bill needs further clarification. Under the amendment, the existing MP exemption—

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I think it only right to say that amendment 151 will not be moved because it will not be called unless the Government choose to move it.

[Miss Smith]

I will beg to move the amendment at the appropriate time.

[Mr Allen]

That is a wonderful precedent. I have a large number of other amendments on the Order Paper. I am very happy to be the midwife and to hand those over to the hon. Lady.

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. Nice try.

[Miss Smith]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

With that, I will finish speaking so that it is possible for another Back Bencher to speak.

[John Thurso]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miss Smith]

Yes.

[John Thurso]

As the Minister is in such a generous mood, would she like to look at my amendment 45?

[Miss Smith]

While we are discussing the topic of further amendments to support, I ought to add that the Opposition made no objection to the programme motion in July.

In concluding, I will turn briefly to amendment 137, which would require that details be provided about any communications between consultant lobbyists and Ministers or permanent secretaries, even if they were not in return for payment, not on behalf of a third party and did not concern Government policy or functions. That would mean that if a consultant lobbyist bumped into a Minister on the tube and spoke about the weather, not Government issues, that meeting would need to be recorded. Indeed, if a consultant lobbyist happened to be married to a permanent secretary, it would be necessary for the details of their communications to be disclosed on a quarterly basis, even if they never took work home, as it were.

I can see that hon. Members are attempting to ensure that inappropriate conversations about ministerial responsibilities do not take place in private, but this is another example of good intentions leading to unintended consequences through unclear drafting. The answer has to be a declaration by Ministers of any meetings that touch upon their ministerial responsibilities, the framework for which we have provided in government. That will form a central part of the transparency regime that we are introducing in part 1 of the Bill. I urge the hon. Member for Nottingham North not to press amendment 137.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. What steps he is taking to open up central Government Departments to partnerships with small and medium-sized enterprises.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)]

It is this Government’s policy to dismantle the barriers facing small and medium-sized companies to ensure that they can compete for contracts on a level playing field and grow. I refer the House to the letter I sent last month to all hon. Members, in which I set out some of the progress we have made and the further steps we will be taking to ensure that Departments continue to increase their spend with small companies.

[Nick de Bois]

I am grateful for the Minister’s answer and I welcome her reforms to Government procurement processes, which are a marked improvement on the previous Government’s efforts. However, will she share her Department’s best practice with local government, which is still issuing cumbersome and complicated tenders that are excluding so many SMEs from competing for business because of the amount of time that they have to put into them?

[Miss Smith]

I welcome that support from my hon. Friend, who is extremely active on these matters in trying to secure more jobs, particularly in his constituency. He rightly says that we have a clear job, which we will do: to transfer the successful procurement reforms that we have made in central Government to the wider public sector. We are accepting the recommendations made in Lord Young’s “Growing Your Business” report, which deals with the complexity, cost and inconsistency that can face small businesses in the wider public sector.

[Julian Sturdy]

The Minister will doubtless be aware of the success of Redfern Travel, from my constituency, which saw off French competition to win a billion-pound contract. How will the Government’s reforms help other British businesses to achieve similar David and Goliath-type victories over multinational corporations?

[Miss Smith]

I also welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment in his constituency to SMEs. I note that support has come from, for example, the Federation of Small Businesses, which says that Government policy continues to move in the right direction in this area. The forthcoming consultation, to which I referred, will make that public sector procurement market more accessible to SMEs, by requiring all contracts over £10,000 to be listed in one place—on Contracts Finder, for example. I also draw his attention to an SME friendliness tool that we published in June. I urge all colleagues to use that to hold contractors in their constituencies to account.

[Mrs Glindon]

What is the Minister doing to promote the use of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 to help small businesses and social enterprises to win public sector contracts?

[Miss Smith]

I am glad that the hon. Lady has raised that point and she will know that we have asked my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) to act as an ambassador on this matter; it is very important. The message that we need to get through to contractors, who are of course the ones making such arrangements, is that they must have regard to the taxpayer and value for money at all times, but that other such issues might also be used to benefit those for whom they are contracting.

[Mr Sheerman]

Is the Minister not aware that the truth is that the Government are becoming more and more dependent on big companies—private sector companies such as G4S, Serco and Capita? Is she aware that a recent Fujitsu-sponsored poll of small and medium-sized enterprises showed that 26% find it more difficult to get contracts with the Government and that 6% think that it is easier?

[Miss Smith]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s focus on this matter. He will welcome our review on some of the companies he has named, but it is most important to say that the Government are on track to deliver our aspiration of awarding 25% of central Government business to SMEs by 2015. We look for that directly and through the supply chain, and that is what helps us to procure for growth in this country.

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

In a recent speech at an event called “Transforming Technology Procurement through SMEs”, the Minister for the Cabinet Office said with typical understatement that the Government were

“entering a new world for government technology procurement”

and launching

“radical reforms to increase opportunities for SME suppliers”.

Why, then, according to freedom of information requests submitted by ComputerWeekly, has only 0.52% of all the IT procurement spend for the Government’s beleaguered universal credit programme gone to SMEs?

[Miss Smith]

It continues to be pretty rich for the hon. Gentleman to come to this Dispatch Box when he and his Government did absolutely nothing to count the spend with SMEs when they were in government.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

5. What assessment he has made of the work of the National Citizen Service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

10. What recent assessment he has made of implementation of the Government’s procurement reforms.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)]

As a result of the Government’s procurement reforms, we have made the way we do business more competitive, more transparent, better value and far simpler than ever before.

[Nic Dakin]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Are the Government still allowing large corporations that are being investigated for fraud to bid to run our probation services while excluding small businesses and organisations from doing the same?

[Miss Smith]

The hon. Gentleman will find that the contracts he might be alluding to were all let by the previous Government, and I have already informed the House of the progress we are making in shifting Government business to SMEs.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The Public Administration Committee’s report on procurement stated that the Cabinet Office should work with all Departments, and especially the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, to ensure that UK business is prepared to deliver UK contracts. What progress is being made on that?

[Miss Smith]

The most important thing to remind the House about in that regard is how the pipelines we have published show British firms, and indeed firms around the world that have a good piece of value to offer the British taxpayer, where they can find contracts.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Britain has a massive trade deficit with the European Union, and it could be reduced if British companies were employed to provide for the Government. How much are the Government doing to ensure that public organisations purchase from British companies, rather than those from the continent of Europe?

[Miss Smith]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make. What we seek is best value for the British taxpayer and to use the British Government’s procurement spend to allow for growth as far as possible in this country. We are of course bound by certain EU procurement rules, with which I am sure he is very familiar. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are a lot of very noisy conversations taking place, including on the Opposition Benches, but I am sure that Members will wish to be quiet to hear Stella Creasy.

--- Later in debate ---

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

While there are now rumours of significant concessions, Ministers still need to explain why charities were not consulted before the lobbying Bill was published. Why could not even the junior Minister be bothered to pick up the phone to the Royal British Legion, cancer charities or the National Council for Voluntary Organisations before producing a Bill that will have such a chilling impact on the work of charities?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)]

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we spent a significant amount of time on this in the House yesterday and that there is more opportunity to discuss it next week. He will also know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I met charity leaders on Monday and will continue to do so. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is still far too much noise in the Chamber. I understand the general excitement, which I am sure is in anticipation of the question from Mr Henry Smith.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

T2. The Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) was to say that she had met charities on Monday. What was she doing all summer while the ramifications of this dog’s breakfast of a lobbying Bill became clear?

[Miss Chloe Smith]

We were doing more over the summer to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists than Labour ever did.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does the Minister share my concern that too many charities spend too much money on lobbying and on inflation-busting pay rises and bonuses for the boardroom, and that they ought to be concentrating more on the front line of helping people in need?

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

T4. Leading human rights lawyer Helen Mountfield QC said this week that the transparency of lobbying Bill will put“small organisations and their trustees/directors in fear of criminal penalty if they speak out on matters of public interest and concern.”Will the Minister finally wake up and do something about this appalling Bill?

[Miss Chloe Smith]

That leading QC’s advice in fact bears out that those concerns exist under the current legislation. Furthermore, we see a great show of displacement activity among Labour Members because they are afraid of some of their friends coming under scrutiny.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

T5. Is it not the case that the transparency of lobbying Bill would not stop lobbyist Lynton Crosby advising the Prime Minister on tobacco policy, but could stop an organisation such as Cancer Research UK campaigning about it? Is that acceptable?

[Miss Smith]

We explained at length yesterday that the Bill would not affect or change the law concerning the political activity of charitable organisations in the sense of when they support, promote or procure electoral outcomes. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has answered the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question too many times to count.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

T6. But the Government’s lobbying proposals would apply only to third-party consultant lobbyists, who make up a small minority of the industry. The Association of Professional Political Consultants estimates that this means that only 1% of ministerial meetings organised by lobbyists will be captured by the legislation. Does the Minister agree with Iain Anderson of the APPC that this Bill is so bad that it“would be difficult to produce a worse Bill”?

[Miss Smith]

If that was an attempt at lobbying it was rather too long-winded. The point is that we are doing more to introduce a statutory register than Labour ever did, and we are clearing up a specific transparency gap that arises, because we are the most transparent Government ever and I think the hon. Gentleman knows it.

The Prime Minister was asked—

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

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)]

Today the Government are introducing the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill to the House of Commons, with explanatory notes and impact assessments.

This is the first Government to proactively publish meetings that Ministers and permanent secretaries have with external organisations. The Bill will extend this transparency to give the public more confidence in the way third parties interact with the political system, ensuring that these activities are accountable and properly regulated. These parties play an important role in the political process, helping to inform policy making and ensuring views are heard by those in Government.

This Bill will ensure that we know who lobbyists lobby for; how much money is spent on third-party political campaigning; and to make sure trade unions know who their members are.

Part 1 of the Bill introduces a statutory register of lobbyists which will address the problem that it is not always clear whose interests are being represented by consultant lobbyists. It will enhance transparency by requiring consultant lobbyists to disclose details about their clients on a publicly available register and will complement the existing Government transparency regime whereby Government Ministers and senior officials proactively disclose information about who they meet.

The Government will today respond to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report “Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists”. We are grateful to the Committee for its detailed consideration and scrutiny of the Government’s initial proposals for a register.

Part 2 of the Bill sets out new rules on third parties campaigning in elections, ensuring that spending by third parties is controlled and fully transparent. In particular, it will expand the scope of controlled campaign expenditure. It will also reduce national spending limits for third parties, ensure that, above a certain limit, political parties explicitly authorise third-party spending which supports that political party, and introduce geographical limits on the amount that third parties can spend in individual constituencies.

Part 3 of the Bill will give assurance of trade unions’ compliance with the existing obligation to maintain the register of members by requiring trade unions to produce an annual membership audit certificate. It also gives the certification officer new powers in relation to investigation and enforcement.

A copy of the Bill and explanatory notes can be found on the website:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/.

Recall of MPs

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)]

The coalition programme for Government included a clear commitment to establish a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and 10% of his or her constituents have signed a petition calling for a by-election.

We set out our proposals and draft legislation in a White Paper which has been scrutinised by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and we have today issued our full response to their report.

In our response, we have reiterated our intention to proceed with the introduction of a recall mechanism and to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows.

We believe this recall mechanism will go some way to restoring trust and accountability to the political process. It will provide an important tool for the House to add to its own suite of disciplinary measures and will give a reassurance to constituents who should not have to rely on their MP choosing to stand down following the committal of a serious wrongdoing.

The recall mechanism we are proposing will have two triggers. Firstly, where a Member receives a custodial sentence of 12 months or less, a recall petition will be automatically opened in that Member’s constituency (under the Representation of the People Act 1981, where a Member receives a custodial sentence of more than 12 months, they are automatically disqualified from membership of the House). If 10% of constituents sign the petition, the MP’s seat will be vacated and a by-election called. The former MP may stand as a candidate.

Secondly a recall petition will be opened where the House of Commons resolves that one of its members should face recall. This will ensure that a Member could also face recall where they have committed serious wrongdoing which did not result in a custodial sentence, for example, a serious breach of the House of Commons Code of Conduct. This will be a new disciplinary power for the House to help ensure that it is able to deal with disciplinary issues effectively. Constituents would again then have the opportunity to decide if a by-election should be held.

We welcome the Committee’s thorough consideration of the proposals and have accepted many of their recommendations, particularly on the conduct of the recall petition. The process of pre-legislative scrutiny has been valuable and will result in an improved Bill being presented to Parliament in due course.