Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Mann Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T3. The last former East Midlands MEP, who had a radio show, soon disappeared into political oblivion. When will the Deputy Prime Minister give the voters of Sheffield, Hallam the opportunity to vote on recalling him?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It is always a pleasure to answer the hon. Gentleman’s somewhat incoherent but none the less punchy questions. I do not want to disappoint him, but I am afraid there are not millions of people hanging on his every word spoken in the Chamber. I think that as politicians, we should go out to be where people are rather than expect them to come where the politicians are. I make no apology for making myself available to members of the public on the radio or in town and village halls up and down the country, as I do every week.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Mann Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have a lot to get through, so we need to speed up from now on.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T3. As the man with his finger on the pulse of the nation, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House the level of the new CIL tax—community infrastructure levy—that is currently being introduced in his own Sheffield city region?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I cannot answer that question; I will get back to the hon. Gentleman.

Party Funding

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

It affects the mysterious matter of affiliation fees. Theoretically, union members have the right to opt out of paying the political levy, except that people have to be very persistent to find out A—that there is a right to do it; B—how to do it; and C—that they will not save any money even if they do so.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

A compliance officer has, by law, to be appointed by every single political party under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Conservative party compliance officer and deputy treasurer, Mike Chattey, is given specific responsibility to ensure that donations are kept legal. In view of what The Sunday Times has reported Mr Chattey to have said, does the Minister agree that that is without question a breach of section 61 of the Act, which states that “any concealment or disguise” of a foreign donation is illegal? Why is Chattey still in his job?

[Mr Maude]

As has been made abundantly clear, the treasurer’s department at CCHQ—Conservative campaign headquarters—did not know that this meeting was taking place. No donation was advanced, and nor could it possibly have been, for exactly the reason that the hon. Gentleman sets out—that it would have been illegal.

Parliamentary Standards Act 2009

Lord Mann Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Many of us remember only too well the collective trauma experienced by the House during the previous Parliament over expenses. It is worth remembering that the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), had support from both sides of the House when he introduced plans for an external and independent body to have responsibility for Members’ allowances. It was rightly seen that a system of self-regulation had been thoroughly discredited and that a fundamentally different approach was required—one that could command public confidence and one that meant establishing a body that was truly independent of Parliament. That body was the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

Today, the Opposition still strongly support that approach and are firmly behind the principles that underlie IPSA’s operation, but it is fair to say that because Parliament moved swiftly to address the wholly understandable public concerns about the House’s expenses regime, after IPSA was established there were a number of shortcomings in the administration of the new system. I am encouraged that IPSA has listened and that significant improvements have been made and are still being made. For instance, the system for the submission of duplicate documents relating to Members’ accommodation has been simplified and Members’ mileage claims are now much more straightforward. These are just two examples of how things have gradually improved over the past 12 months.

That is not to say that the process of improvement should come to an end. On the contrary, we need to consider carefully two reports that highlight the fact that ISPA can and should make further improvements. The first report is that from the National Audit Office, published in July. It suggested that IPSA ought to consider a number of points. For example, it stated that IPSA needed to consider how it could improve relations with MPs and provide reassurance that it was truly committed to doing all it could to facilitate our work as MPs. Similarly, it suggested that IPSA ought to consider the introduction of centralised procurement contracts. It was argued that such contracts would allow more progress to be made in achieving IPSA’s goal of a cost-effective scheme. Other points in that report are also worthy of consideration.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for robustly supporting the coalition position in this debate, which I, too, endorse. However, does not his point about the National Audit Office go to the crux of the dilemma? There are many different views on what a good system would be. My personal preference would be for local supplies, rather than national supplies, to boost local economies; the National Audit Office, backed by some, is suggesting something centralised and national. Does that not go to the crux of the matter, and is that not precisely why IPSA should remain independent?

[Mr David]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which underlines the point that IPSA should always effectively be independent of Parliament, as he says. The only point I would make—and which the National Audit Office has also made—is about the general principle of collective procurement, which could be done more effectively to save taxpayers’ money. IPSA has made advances in ensuring a cost-effective scheme, but more can be done, and this is a clear example.

The second report that we are discussing today is that from the Committee on Members’ Expenses. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and his Committee for their assiduous work. Their report is reasonable in tone and contains a raft of practical proposals to improve IPSA’s performance. However, I have some reservations about aspects of the report. For example, I am somewhat concerned about the recommendation that a separate body be established within the House of Commons service. That body, the report says, would be independently regulated by IPSA, and

“transparency would ensure that it did not replicate the deficiencies of the old expenses system.”

I welcome those words of reassurance, which are honestly expressed, but I am not convinced that we should run the risk of creating a perception that MPs could once again exercise influence over their expenses. For me, independence means independence, full stop.

Parliamentary Lobbying

Lord Mann Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn]

Indeed. I read it with some interest. Yesterday, three very senior figures, including past Cabinet Secretaries, came before the Public Administration Committee to discuss the matter. I was very concerned about what has happened. We know that in this case it seemed that a secret foreign policy was being created. Money was coming in from organisations that many of us would regard as having extreme aims, to subvert Government policy. Where commercial firms were involved, were they there to buy influence, or to influence contracts? Anything on those lines is entirely wrong, and if those contacts were made, they should have been made publicly and declared. They were not. We will have to learn the lesson there.

Even on smaller matters, can we trust the Government, who last year altered the ministerial code so that all meetings with lobbyists should be declared by Ministers, when this week we learn that one Secretary of State enjoyed a five-star dinner at the Savoy, held by a major lobbying firm, and that among the other guests was a company that was lobbying his Department? Instead of transparency and openness, we have the Secretary of State defending himself and saying that on that day he was eating privately, not ministerially. [Interruption.] Indeed, he is eating very well, and his eating habits are a matter of some interest to the House, and parliamentary sketch writers. However, that is a small example, although not of enormous significance: it is a sign of the lack of any conviction in government about instituting genuine reform.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

On the case that my hon. Friend cites, is he aware that that Minister was performing a quasi-judicial role, and that if a judge had had such a dinner, people would have gone to prison for contempt of court?

[Paul Flynn]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We cannot deal in excuses and half truths any more, because of the position we are in. If there is a rule—and the Government created that rule, for goodness’ sake—let Ministers abide by it and not make silly excuses.

Advocates and paid representatives of some of the worst and most oppressive regimes in the world use this building and this House, to invite MPs—sometimes naive MPs—to visit their countries, to try to win their support. Among such countries, Azerbaijan and Equatorial Guinea are very active at the moment. Should we allow that to continue? Should we allow this building and its facilities, and the good will of Members to be used, in the way that other Parliaments have cosied up to oppressive regimes?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I listened with some amazement to the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) saying that we should be careful, because people will be put off lobbying. I assure him that the people of Bassetlaw do not require paid advisers to lobby their MP eloquently and effectively. We have a word for it—democracy. My problem and my constituents’ problem is that access to MPs, and therefore access for my constituents, is squeezed and blocked by the number of paid lobbyists representing interests, gaining access preferentially and using their contacts, which stops the rest of us getting the access to the Government that we should be getting.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has used the term “incestuous”. I think that a better term to use is “interchangeable”, because we are becoming a Parliament of paid, professional lobbyists. The reason is that the political class, the advisers and the researchers are entirely interchangeable with the lobby industry—they are literally interchangeable. People spend a couple of years as an adviser, then a couple of years as a lobbyist, then they go back to being an adviser, then they go back to being a lobbyist and then they go into Parliament as an MP. That is the way into this place, although I will not embarrass the dozens and dozens and dozens of colleagues who have entered the House in that way.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

What does the hon. Gentleman propose as a measure to stop that career development, because it is clear that many of our colleagues have followed the path that he has just described? Is he going to introduce legislation to stop that?

[John Mann]

The hon. Gentleman will want to listen to my speech. He may have a “career” in this House, but I have a vocation here, attempting to represent the interests of my constituents. That seems to me what being a Member of Parliament should be about.

Let me give an illustration of this interchangeability, or “incestuous relationship”, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West has described it. We will go to the top and start with the Prime Minister, because of course the founder of Shandwick lobbyists was Lord Chadlington. Lord Chadlington was the Prime Minister’s patron to get his parliamentary seat in Witney and, as was reported in The Sunday Times in 2007, he offered the Prime Minister his little farm and pool, in which the Prime Minister’s family were invited to swim. Actually, he did a lot more than that, because the little farm is the same building that he gave the Prime Minister and that the Prime Minister used for the first six months that he was a Member of Parliament. And Lord Chadlington is a man who formed a lobbying company, which was eventually sold on to Huntsman—sorry, Huntsworth lobbyists. People can see that Huntsworth does not lobby me that often. [Laughter.]

Huntsworth has its tentacles across the world. One of its subsidiaries is called Quiller. The Minister will be smiling, because Quiller employs lots of people from lots of different political parties, including advisers. I have never heard of it myself, but apparently two of them were advisers to the Labour party; they were a Mr Smith and a Mr Slinger. I never came across them myself. There were also a Mr Alistair Murray, who advised the Liberal Democrat party, and a Mr Parkinson, a Ms Roycroft and a Mr Malcolm Morton, who were all aides to Conservative MPs. Indeed, the Minister will know Mr Malcolm Morton, because he was an adviser to the Minister. Saying that is not to criticise either the Minister or Mr Morton, but it demonstrates the interchangeability between the political world and the lobbying world. That preferential access is gained by personal contacts, which is what is fundamentally wrong with the current situation.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend also include those people who have worked for trade unions in this sphere, for example people who have been the head of education and research for their union or people who were trade union liaison officers?

[John Mann]

No, I would not—[Laughter.]

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order.

[John Mann]

I would not include them, in the same way that I would not include small business owners in the same category. The issue is this—what access is gained to Parliament?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

Double standards.

[John Mann]

The Minister says “double standards”. That is what the Government are attempting to do; they are attempting to distract us from this issue, because of the Werrity scandal, and make us look at another issue. This issue has nothing to do with “standards”; it is to do with access. If a Minister’s researchers and advisers become paid lobbyists, of course they have better contact and communication with that Minister, whether that is a Conservative Minister, Labour Minister or any other Minister. Of course that is the case and that is the problem.

The question, “What should be done about it?”, is fundamental. Before I answer it, however, there is another aspect that we must consider. Let us take the case of Bell Pottinger and the Werrity scandal. In that case, the question that arises is about the international role of lobbyists, because what has not come out is information about the role that Bell Pottinger was playing in Sri Lanka. People have been distracted from that issue, not least because Lord Bell is doing quite a lot of the public relations to try to cover his tracks and what was going on, which was Bell Pottinger representing the Government of Sri Lanka. According to the Catholic bishop of Mannar, under that Government 146,000 people have disappeared without trace, including many members of his congregation, and Bell Pottinger is there in Sri Lanka representing the interests of that Government. That is why transparency is important, and that is why we need to know if Ministers are having meetings with the Sri Lankan Government that were set up by Mr Werrity or indeed by anyone else. What is going on? Bell Pottinger is being paid to facilitate such things on behalf of the Government of Sri Lanka.

I will conclude now because other Members wish to speak, but what we need are the following principles, which I will put to the Minister. The first principle is transparency. There must be absolute transparency in all the meetings that we have as politicians, and there is not. The lack of transparency is the fundamental weakness that exists, with people claiming that “private engagements” have happened. There should be no such thing as a “private engagement” for a Minister, and there should be very little of it for an MP. There should be transparency.

Secondly, where money and profit are involved, transparency is all the more urgently required and should be all the more available, because of the paying for access scandals that have bedevilled politics in this country.

The third principle relates to preferential access. There needs to be action on preferential access. How do we do that, because someone cannot stop their researcher from working for a lobbying company? It is a free world. However, there needs to be a recording of all ministerial meetings, and all MPs should be recording what lobbyists are attempting to do if they are successful in influencing them. Also, there should be a full ban on paid professional lobbyists having passes in order to access this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There are scandalous cases of senior civil servants walking out of one door and in through another. I find it particularly outrageous that the Government spend millions of pounds hiring head-hunters and recruitment consultants, yet some of those recruitment consultants have former senior civil servants on board who worked in the human resources department and—surprise, surprise—the job is given to that head-hunting agency. There is no difference between head-hunting agencies raking it in from the taxpayer, and being hired by the Government to carry out some of the activities that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West described.

I regret that the previous Government did not do more. I was not around at the time, but a report by the Public Administration Committee urged the Government to compile a register on lobbying. However, the Government never failed to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. It is rich of many Opposition Members to start to have a go at the Government now, when they had so many years to get this right and did nothing.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s confirmation that he will go further and bring in a proper register of lobbyists, including of organisations such as think-tanks and trade unions, which are politically active and part of the lobbying landscape. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) condemned people who work as special advisers and then become MPs. I was one of those dreaded people. My work as a political consultant and as a special adviser helped to prepare me for Parliament. The hon. Gentleman would not criticise a lawyer who had spent all his life learning law before becoming a judge.

[John Mann]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The concept, and the word, is not “condemned”; it is about pointing to the danger of interchangeability. It is not about condemning individuals for what they do.

[Robert Halfon]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and the answer is that there must be openness and transparency, but it is not so terrible if a businessman hires someone who has worked in Government or for the Opposition because they understand what has been going on.

We must be more careful and much tougher with quangos—paid for by the taxpayer—that hire paid lobbyists to lobby the taxpayer for more money. Figures show that the Ordnance Survey and the Audit Commission spent more than £600,000 on lobbyists in 2009. Transparency and openness are key; all the problems will go away if everyone is clear about what is happening, and about which lobby groups are lobbying which Ministers and MPs, but there will be a difficulty with the definition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

My understanding is that all the meetings up to the end of April this year have been published. However, I will check up on the matter. It was my understanding because that information has been provided.

On the point the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) made, even some of his colleagues—I will not embarrass them by pointing them out—thought that his line about trade unions not being encompassed by the transparency rules is unsustainable. Given the fact that the party he represents gets 85% of its donations from trade unions and a quarter of its donations from a single trade union, I am afraid that his argument is simply not defensible.

[John Mann]

I have not put that argument. Lobbyists are lobbyists and trade union lobbyists are lobbyists. However, every trade union member and trade union official is not a lobbyist. A lobbyist is a lobbyist. I, for one, have never been one.

[Mr Harper]

But every trade union official who seeks to influence Members and Ministers is engaged in lobbying, and they should be covered by the transparency rules just like everyone else. They have nothing to hide and it is important that the hon. Gentleman recognises that as, to be fair, I think several Labour Members do.

There will be some challenges about definitions and what we encompass in our consultation. That is why we want to listen and ensure that people can make a case and approach Members of Parliament, and that there is nothing untoward going on. We need to ensure that there is transparency, that people know what is going on, that Members of Parliament and Ministers are using their judgment about the arguments when they are making decisions and that people are not getting privileged access.

Transparency is a good thing. We will introduce our proposals this month and listen to what people have to say. I am very happy to have a dialogue with the hon. Member for Caerphilly to try to reach a consensual approach between the parties because the position will then be much clearer. The hon. Member for Newport West made a valid point that we need our constituents to have much more confidence in the system. I hope that we can reduce the chances of abuse and problems occurring in future.

Public Disorder

Lord Mann Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, I think the greatest deterrent to such people is not just the sentence, but knowing that they will be arrested and put in front of a court. That is why the strength of numbers of police on the streets lifting and arresting people is vital. Secondly, when events such as these take place, it is perfectly possible for courts to set some exemplary sentences, to send out a clear message, and I for one hope they will do just that.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Last Wednesday, it was determined that all nine police cells in Bassetlaw would be immediately closed. Does the Prime Minister instinctively agree with me and local police officers that now is not the time to be closing police cells?

[The Prime Minister]

It is very important that we have a good network of police cells in our towns and cities, so that officers do not have to drive for miles after making an arrest. That is why cutting some of the paperwork and bureaucracy that has led to some of the cell closures is so important.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Lord Mann Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Foster]

I will in a minute.

We join both major political parties in saying that it is vital to acknowledge that there are some very good police officers and journalists, sadly including many who have lost their jobs because of what happened at News International.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Sadly, the phrase “Don’t believe everything you read in the press” now seems to be true. In addition to dealing with criminality, I hope that this process will ensure that we can believe everything that we read in the press, just as we can believe the phrase “You can always trust a policeman”.

A great cross-party approach has led to the inquiry, so I commend the Leader of the Opposition for working with our Prime Minister and the other party leaders. However, I wish that Labour Members had acted when they were in government, as I am sure they agree.

I associate myself with the apology that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) made to Mr Rupert Murdoch yesterday, and I give Mr Murdoch some credit for staying on to answer Committee members’ questions. My hon. Friend also referred to outstanding points for the inquiry. As the Committee has not yet concluded its report, I do not intend to make specific comments about what was said yesterday, but I encourage hon. Members to read the transcript and to note that we will set out written follow-up questions.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) suggested that at least two people had lied to Parliament in the past 24 hours. I assume he was referring to Sir Paul Stephenson’s comments about his resignation, and perhaps to Mrs Brooks and the Murdochs.

[John Mann]

That is four people.

[Dr Coffey]

I do not know to whom the hon. Member for Rhondda was referring.

We have to be careful when we say that people have lied to Parliament. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have not got to the bottom of the matter—as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) said, some of the testimony was frustrating—and to do so we need to call further witnesses to our inquiry. However, I now know that the Committee’s intention is that the police and the judicial inquiry see further witnesses rather than us.

I welcome a lot of the suggestions that have been made about equal prominence for apologies and about fining and compensation powers. I asked Mr Murdoch yesterday whether, given his experience in the media spotlight, he would think again about his newspapers’ headlines and some of the targets of their investigative journalism. I appreciate that a headline such as “Up Yours Delors” is quite entertaining and unlikely to cause damage, but The Sun once published the headline “Bonkers Bruno Locked Up”. At that time, Mrs Brooks learned a lesson straight away because the following day she published a front-page editorial from the charity SANE, as well as making appropriate restoration. I see that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) is not in the Chamber, but I should point out that The Sun has made no such restoration of reputation for the Hillsborough 96, which I think would be welcomed by the people of Liverpool.

Newspapers and the Press Complaints Commission itself do not need to wait for the creation of a new regulator because they could change the code of conduct by bringing in several ideas that have been suggested. Although, the PCC’s credibility has sadly, been somewhat destroyed, that does not mean that it should be sulking, as I perceive that some of its comments suggest is the case, although I am sure that that is not its intention. People should look in the mirror before they write those headlines and decide what they are going to put out there. As I said, some of the treatment that editors, both past and present, have recently received will, I hope, make them think again.

Both in the testimony that we heard yesterday and in the Home Office report, there was extremely heavy reliance on lawyers’ advice, for example, on the sum for which people should settle. The Home Office report considered the question of whether former Deputy Assistant Commissioner Clarke relied on lawyers’ advice about undertaking more investigation if News International was not co-operating, and whether he was told that the police could not really exercise certain powers because it would be seen as fishing. From my own experience of corporate life, lawyers always take the lowest-risk approach, and one has to decide whether one wants to take that advice. Indeed, the House decided earlier this year that it was not happy with advice about prisoners’ votes. People should not necessarily hide behind lawyers’ advice. They should listen to it, but they should be prepared to make different decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Yesterday Rebekah Brooks described The Sun as a “very clean ship”, and the Murdoch family appears to be suggesting that now that the News of the World is defunct we can move on. The Sun has had some remarkable scoops for which people do not appear to have gone to court and been convicted. These are scoops by one reporter; there are others, of course, under The Sun. The following footballers have been the subject of scoops, usually front page scoops, in The Sun by the same reporter, all of which can only have come from the Metropolitan police. There is no other possible source for any of these stories.

This is my squad for the World cup: Frank Lampard, Jay Bothroyd, Carlton Cole, Manuel de Costa, Paul Gascoigne, Armand Traoré, Cristiano Ronaldo, Paul Merson, Tony Cascarino, Stan Bowles, Bobby Zamora, Quincy Owusu, Jack Wilshere, Kieron Dyer, Nicklas Bendtner, David James, Didier Drogba, Juan Verón. Manager: José Mourinho—that was in 2007. Captain: Wayne Rooney—on 1 August 2008. Wayne Rooney was not arrested near Oxford street in London, but he was, according to The Sun exclusive, read his rights. All those stories involved footballers, all of them in London. However, when Mr Rooney and Mr Gerrard had run-ins with the police in the north-west, every newspaper had the story, with no scoops for The Sun. When Mr Robin van Persie, a London footballer, had an altercation with the police in Holland, The Sun was a day later than the rest of the media. Do not be a footballer in London and be in any situation with the police without being charged, if The Sun is around.

But this does not just involve footballers. Do not be a police officer, either. On 6 July 2011 a front-page headline read, “Threat to kill dead dogs in car cop”. Sackloads of hate mail targeted a sergeant who was a dog handler, in whose car two dogs had, sadly, died. The article said:

“One source said: ‘Thousands of letters were arriving’.”

The only possible source for that story was the police—the Metropolitan police. There were dozens of such examples while Brooks was in charge of The Sun, all involving the Met—no other police force—doing in their own.

Murder cases are involved too. I have written to Sue Akers about them, and I shall not go into them now, as this is a time to tread delicately around them. Suffice it to say that I am asking her to look into texts to or from murder victims that have mysteriously appeared in the media. Who gave the media those texts? There is a range of cases that the House will be familiar with, but they have not been mentioned in relation to phone hacking. Texts need to be part of the inquiry, not least those that appear in The Sun.

London’s celebrities are not just footballers: Hugh Grant, Ms Dynamite, Lily Allen, Peaches Geldof, Adam Ant, Jude Law, Liz Hurley, Rod Liddle, Keira Knightley, Leslie Ash, Elliott Tittensor, Mohammed al-Fayed, Woody Harrelson, Joe McGann, Christian Bale, Sean Bean and Mike Tindall; it could even be someone marrying the Queen’s granddaughter. They are all in London. If you want to have a car crash, have it outside London. If you want to have a drink and an issue with a photographer, have it outside London. If it happens in London, someone in the Met will be handing over or selling your information to The Sun.

Relatives of the famous are affected too: John Terry’s father, Cristiano Ronaldo’s cousin, Ashley Cole’s brother, Jermain Defoe’s brother, Sadie Frost’s sister, Tony Blair’s son, Patricia Hewitt’s son and Nelson Mandela’s grandson. On 4 November 2005 The Sun exclusive was Steve McFadden and Angela Bostock: police officers were there at the time. On the same day, Detective Constable David Dougall, a Scotland Yard officer, was convicted of selling information to The Sun. Why has that case, including the comments of John Ross, who bought the information, not been made public? The police dropped their investigations against The Sun because, Ross believes:

“It would have revealed a lot of conversations between Mike”—

Sullivan, The Sun’s crime reporter—

“and senior officers and they didn’t want to open that can of worms.”

Giving evidence on behalf of Ross were Sky News crime correspondent Martin Brunt and others. In the Press Gazette, Sullivan kindly put his diary—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I believe that I am the first London Member from the Opposition Benches to speak in the debate. That is unfortunate, given the prominence of the Metropolitan police in our discussions, but I hope that my colleagues from London will catch your eye later, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I would like to say a lot, but we are constrained by time at the tail end of our discussion. Suffice it to say that I believe that the power of News International and many other media organisations, as many hon. Members have said, has distorted the way in which politicians and others in public life go about their daily business, but what is wrong is the fact that the ownership of our media is out of kilter. It should not just be an issue about BSkyB and whether News International increases its influence in it; it should be about whether News International is a fit and proper company and should be allowed to continue to hold sway over such a large part of our national media.

In what is left of my time allocation, I wish to speak about the influence of the Mayor of London on the Metropolitan police. I think it was wrong for him to say that the phone hacking issue was “codswallop”—that it was a plot

“cooked up by the Labour party”,

that it was

“a song and dance about nothing”,

and that he was not going to become involved in the issue, only as far back as September 2010. The Metropolitan police were under pressure from people outside the House and some hon. Members, as we all know, to reopen the investigation and look into the phone hacking scandal. It was bound to influence the views of those police that the Mayor of London, who is supposedly given influence over issues relating to policing matters on behalf of people in London, had already made public statements to say that he did not think such an inquiry worth while—that he thought it was a load of rubbish. It was bound to influence their thinking about whether to reopen that inquiry.

I sincerely hope that the Leveson inquiry will look into that fact, because it will be an important factor in whether we decide to go forward with elected police commissioners throughout the country, because when the Government advocate elected police commissioners, they always use the Mayor of London as an example. Well, actually, the Mayor of London is accountable to the Metropolitan Police Authority for what he does with the police. The members of the MPA have a great deal of influence in London, and it is a democratically based body, with other co-opted members to make it broadly representative of London. We are diluting the influence of the MPA and converting it into a panel. We are not giving it any teeth whatever to enable it to have oversight, and we are placing all the influence and power in the hands of a directly elected Mayor or his appointed deputy Mayor.

The problem that we have faced is the over-burgeoning power of the media and their ability to twist and manipulate individuals, particularly politicians at times. I would stand here and criticise the former leader of my party for going halfway around the world to pay court to Rupert Murdoch—I made that criticism openly at the time and I do so now—but that is because those individuals’ power has been too great. We have seen the tentacles go deep into the Metropolitan police and into our political life. We have officers who are now probably facing prison because they were corrupted by journalists throwing money around; we have politicians who have been too close and embarrassed themselves by their relationships with the media. It is extremely corrupting.

The Mayor of London said that this matter was “codswallop” only days after the article appeared in The New York Times which resulted in the reopening of the Metropolitan police inquiry. So we have to look at how the Mayor has been influenced by the media and the way he has used the media.

[John Mann]

Would my hon. Friend be astonished to learn that one of his constituents, as a police officer in 2005, received a suspended jail sentence for selling information to The Sun for a mere £200? Does that show how endemic the problem has become?

[Clive Efford]

I think it does, and it shows why Parliament was recalled so that we could have this debate. I am sure that that police officer, for that small sum of money, seriously regrets his judgment, but what underlies such transactions is the power of the media to suggest that their influence stretches so far that they are not accountable, and will never be accountable, because they are under the umbrella and shield of our protection because they think themselves so great and so mighty. The fact that Rebekah Brooks thought she could walk into Parliament and say, “Yes, we pay the police,” and walk out again without being held to account for it was an absolute disgrace. The Met must never return to that again.

The Mayor of London, however, used his influence to try to stall the inquiry. His reasons for that will have to come out as these matters are investigated, but without question his attitude to the investigation into phone hacking could only have had influence on the thoughts and decisions of the police, and that must be investigated.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Lord Mann Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We have seen an enormous cut in the Government advertising budget—just one of the many things we have done to cut out the waste created by the Opposition.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

At Chequers or anywhere else, on how many occasions has the Prime Minister discussed this scandal with Andy Coulson since Mr Coulson left his employment?

[The Prime Minister]

As the House knows, Andy Coulson came to stay with me in March. I have not spoken to him for weeks. While he worked for me, that obviously was discussed on an ongoing basis. Just to repeat: if I had had evidence that he knew about the hacking, I would not have employed him, and if I had had some while he was working for me, I would have relieved him of the appointment.

Election Petitions

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I rise to introduce this Adjournment debate on an issue that should be, and I think will be, of interest to all Members of the House—perhaps unexpectedly and by surprise in future years if the law is not changed. I declare not an interest, but a long-standing personal friendship with one of the individuals to whom I shall refer—Mr Phil Woolas, the former Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, who is nowadays something of an expert on election petitions and their impact.

There has been a long history of election petitions over the past 400 years, but since 1604 there has not been much change in this respect in Parliament and therefore in this country. There has been a fundamental weakness in how the law has been consolidated in 1983 and since then. As is well recognised, the Electoral Commission has been privy to cross-party discussions—one could even call them negotiations—on such matters. In a helpful advice note, the commission said of the legal basis for challenging the result of an election:

“There was broad support for a review of the current legal basis for challenging the results of an election. The general”—

cross-party—

“consensus was that the process was antiquated, not user-friendly and that reform of the process was needed.”

Similarly, on the rather minor issue of the correction of procedural errors, it states:

“If the Returning Officer concludes that the wrong person was declared ‘duly’ elected because of a procedural mistake, he or she currently has no powers to correct the error beyond advising the affected candidate to lodge an election petition.”

That is clearly nonsense and an anomaly that needs to be rectified in law.

Petitions on minor but important issues that do not affect the result do not occur. In essence, those issues disappear. One cannot challenge a precise wrong within the process without a full election petition. We should have a system that allows candidates or third parties to point to errors that do not affect the outcome without involving the principle or requiring the potential expense of attempting to remove an elected Member. Any candidate or third party with a rational interest should have the power to point to something that has been done that is anomalous, wrong or mistaken, such as errors that are made in the process by a local authority or a returning officer. The inability to do so in the current system, other than by an exchange of correspondence, is a weakness that undermines our system of democracy.

We now get on to the much bigger issue of costs and surety. Given the nature of political argument and the often heated debates within election campaigns, it needs to be difficult for losing candidates to put in petitions that could be deemed frivolous. If it is too easy to put in an election petition and every candidate puts one in, perhaps because they have lost by a few votes and are looking for an excuse to overturn the result, it clearly does not suit Parliament and democracy. That must be balanced against the potential risks of costs should one put in a petition. It should not be only those with significant wealth, and who might be able to meet adverse costs, who should feel confident about putting in an election petition if there is a wrong that requires righting. There is an imbalance within the process that needs to be rebalanced. We must allow genuine petitions to go forward without encouraging reckless or frivolous petitions that are not genuine, and the ability to take forward a petition must not rely on finance.

The problem of costs was compounded recently by a case involving local election petitions in Slough. This is not a party political point, so I will not even mention the parties involved. The key issue is the principle. One of the major parties ended up with a councillor in prison. The other party, which brought the case, sought to have its costs awarded when it won the case. However, the party whose councillor was in prison dropped the candidate. It was up to the party that won in court potentially to bankrupt the individual. Clearly there needs to be a better system than that. I put it to the Minister that what is needed is a provision to allow election courts a wider remit in awarding costs and in deciding who should meet them. In particular, if a party defends the case, or aids and abets the defence, there should be the possibility of costs in part or whole being awarded against that party rather than necessarily against the individual. I do not think the continuation of the Slough example will serve any of the political parties in this country in future.

A case that, perhaps remarkably, has not been discussed in the House before is that of Mr Phil Woolas, who was a Member of the House and was elected at the last general election. I think it is reasonably fair to say that he was a widely respected Member on both sides of the House. Of course, he is no longer a Member, and indeed he cannot stand in any election for three years. I am not questioning the judgment that was made; I am questioning the process and its weaknesses and inflexibility. I think it will be helpful if I quote part of the conclusion of the judgment made by the two judges who sat on the election court. They stated:

“In our judgment to say that a person has sought the electoral support of persons who advocate extreme violence, in particular to his personal opponent, clearly attacks his personal character or conduct.

It suggests that he is willing to condone threats of violence in pursuit of personal advantage.

Having considered the evidence which was adduced in court we are sure that these statements were untrue. We are also sure that the respondent had no reasonable grounds for believing them to be true and did not believe them to be true.”

One of the anomalies in the current law is the question of what is “personal character and conduct”. The previous time there was an electoral petition on the matter was the North Louth case in 1911. However, unless the law is changed, there is a danger in the era of the modern media that because one such case has been taken, many such cases could be taken. From looking at the publicity and propaganda that there have been, I think it is factually accurate to say that there have been worse in recent elections from all three main parties than in the case of Mr Woolas, and the candidates in question have won. Indeed, there is a significant question of how we determine the facts of a case. Others have raised that matter, and it was part of the appeal that was attempted. However, before I come to it, there is a point that has never been raised that I will raise for the first time.

I am aware that the leaflets that caused offence were not written by Mr Woolas. He never made great play of the fact that he did not write them, but I put it to the House that less honourable politicians may well have used that as a basis of defence, although not necessarily successfully. They might have said that somebody else wrote the publicity. The question is where the sanctions should be applied. Should they be solely applied to the candidate?

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Mann]

No.

Clearly the candidate needs to take responsibility for their publicity, but the reason that question rings so true to me is that in 1997, I was sent by the Labour party to oversee the last five days of the campaign in Oldham East and Saddleworth of Mr Phil Woolas. I wrote the leaflets in the last five days, and Mr Woolas, as a good candidate, was not consulted on them at any stage.

In the parlance of the Labour party agents—it is no different among the other major parties—candidates have been known for decades as “LNs”—legal necessities. My leaflets were beyond reproach, but if they had not been, who would have been responsible? Would it have been the writer of the leaflets, the legal agent appointed by the candidate, or the candidate? It seems to me that some flexibility of sanctions is needed in the law, to take that question into account. The matter could be further complicated, of course, if leaflets were put out jointly with local election candidates, potentially involving two agents and different candidates.

It seems to me that there is a fundamental weakness in the law. In essence, the question available to the election court, as demonstrated in the case of Mr Woolas, is yes or no, guilty or not guilty. If guilty, the sanction must be the ultimate one of striking out. No other option was available in Mr Woolas’s case. There was no option of looking to see whether the leaflets influenced the campaign. Therefore, a leaflet that is written but never distributed—a copy could be obtained—could be used to overturn an election result.

There is a second principle: there is no right of appeal—the press coverage at the time of Mr Woolas’s case perhaps confused that. The Fiona Jones case in 1999 was a criminal prosecution. Because of that, she successfully appealed and was reinstated as a Member of Parliament. In the civil case against Mr Woolas, no appeal was possible, as was recognised when he attempted a judicial review, and therefore it was not possible to look at the statements of fact as determined by the election court judges. Natural justice in any other place dictates that there should be an appeal. A murderer of the worst kind has a right of appeal, and yet a parliamentarian who has lost his seat because of an election court ruling—as others could—does not. That anomaly needs to be changed. It was changed in relation to criminal cases because of the Fiona Jones case, but it was left out of the 1983 consolidation Act.

It is essential that the Government move quickly to change that before lots of similar cases are brought to attempt to change results. I put it to the House that in the internet era, there is a greater possibility of more cases being brought, because there are more outlets for things being stated as part of a campaign. The candidate— rightly and honourably—must accept ownership of those things, but he might not have direct control of them during the campaign. I put it to the Minister that we are all at risk.

My final point to the Minister is a separate one that relates to my election. I estimate that a wealthy benefactor in the other place, Lord Ashcroft, put in £250,000 to try to win my seat in the election, and he did so quite legally. Many photographs of the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Prime Minister, were sent by direct mail. One household received 29 direct mails, and mine received six. It was a waste of money—it may have increased my vote—but there is an unfairness in the system. If I had £250,000 to spend, I think I could increase my majority.

That also needs to be looked at. A review of fairness, honesty and integrity in elections is imperative—a review that does not excuse certain behaviour or give candidates of any party anywhere to run; and that allows honourable, fair and just campaigns and outcomes; but that leaves fair, just and reasonable remedies for those who wish to challenge them. The internet, e-mail, texting and Twitter age dictates that the Government must introduce legislation to change the foundation of electoral law in the UK, which is described by Roger Morris and David Monks, in “Running Elections 2003”, as

“Victorian in construction and tone”.

We need to modernise, and for all our sakes, we need to do so quickly.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing the debate. It is not the first time we have heard from him this evening, but no less the worse for that.

The Government want to improve public confidence in all aspects of our electoral system. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that it is important that the conduct of all elections to this House, and to local authorities and the European Parliament, are beyond reproach. I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that we want elections to be decided through the ballot box and not in the courts, but some remedies should be available to deal with cases of corrupt or illegal practices by candidates or agents. There should be clear and robust mechanisms for challenging the results of elections, and he is right to say that they should include appropriate, proportionate and accessible safeguards. The Government’s view is that that is the case under the Representation of the People Act 1983.

The hon. Gentleman raised several issues of cost, including the overall cost, and made a specific point about a court’s ability to apportion costs. My understanding is that courts have a wide discretion under section 154 of the Act to apportion costs. He raised a specific case that I will endeavour to look at after the debate and consider what he said in the light of it.

The hon. Gentleman also made a point about proportionality. Although there may be technical reasons why a returning officer may have declared a particular result, revoking the election of somebody is a significant step and should not be done lightly. Although the hon. Gentleman suggested cases in which it might be considered only an administrative matter, if we think a little more about it we realise that those of us who have been elected would not want our elections to be overturned by some relatively straightforward process. It should be difficult to overturn an election, and we need to strike a balance in the level of proportionality.

Notwithstanding the relatively recent case of Phil Woolas, it is also worth saying that the election petition device—certainly for parliamentary elections—is rare. There have only been seven petitions issued against the results of UK parliamentary elections since 1997, and only two of those have been successful. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that it would not be healthy if we had regular challenges.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned appeals. The High Court in the Woolas case confirmed that section 144 of the 1983 Act said that decisions of the electoral courts were final insofar as matters of fact were concerned. The hon. Gentleman was right about that, but I do not agree that that was a misconsolidation of the 1983 Act. If he goes back to the 1868 Act—I will not go as far back as the 400 years that he suggested—he will see that it was also clear that matters of fact were final decisions that the election court could take. In the Woolas case, the High Court made it clear that the decisions about the application of the law were judicially reviewable—

[John Mann]

The anomaly is that for a criminal case the law has been changed and allows an appeal, as the Fiona Jones case demonstrated. In a civil case, no appeal is allowed, and that surely is neither rational nor fair.

[Mr Harper]

I shall come on to that point in a moment. I just wished to make the distinction clear between matters of fact and the application of the law, which—to be fair—the hon. Gentleman did. The High Court made it clear that it was possible for judicial review of how the election court had applied the law.

On the basis of that decision, I do not think that the law needs to be changed to clarify the decision that matters of law can be appealed, although there was confusion in the reports of the case about whether Phil Woolas was appealing or requesting judicial review.

It is for Members to weigh up the issues, taking into account the hon. Gentleman’s point that we never know when we might be the subject of one these petitions. However, we must balance against that the need for a level of speed in the process. When Phil Woolas sought a judicial review, the High Court concluded on the justification for finality on fact:

“Election petitions must be determined with urgency. Finality in the determination is of great importance for not only must the electors have a representative in Parliament, but in times when majorities are small, the absence of a Member can be significant.”

A balance needs to be struck in this process between getting the right decision and getting it quite speedily. He raised several points about that matter. The Government keep it under review, but at the moment we are not persuaded by his arguments.

At the end of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman raised a more general issue about party funding. He will know that the coalition Government have made a commitment to deal with party funding—hopefully, on a consensual basis. We are waiting for the Committee on Standards in Public Life to publish its report. The committee might make proposals that we can take as a basis for conversations between the parties and that might deal with some of the issues he has raised. He also made a point about the danger of political arguments being used to try to overturn elections. I think that the High Court made clear the distinction between false statements of fact about a candidate’s personal character or conduct and their political or public position—a statement had to be one or the other, but could not be both. Members when approving literature and others when thinking about challenging us should bear it in mind that it is not about running off to court every time someone says something about someone’s political position.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about things that get authorised by us. The legislation makes it clear that candidates should be liable to have their election voided only if they or their election agents—not lots of other people, but specifically they or their election agents—have authorised or consented to those illegal practices. That should ensure that election candidates and their election agents are careful about what they authorise and approve the spending of money on. They should perhaps be careful not to delegate that responsibility to others. It is not the case that anybody involved in a campaign can put out pieces of paper—if they are not approved by the candidate or election agent, they cannot lead to what happened in the case of Mr Woolas.

In conclusion, the Government agree that there should be proportionate and accessible procedures for challenging elections. We will keep the current position under review, and I will consider the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, particularly on costs, and come back to him one way or the other.

Question put and agreed to.

Review of Parliamentary Standards Act 2009

Lord Mann Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

My constituency is one of the furthest from the sea, so the next debate on fisheries has no real relevance for jobs there—we merely eat the product—but I put it to the House that that debate is of far more consequence to my constituents than wasting parliamentary time on the self-indulgent obsession of some MPs with the expenses system, which, along with pay, should be determined by an independent body away from this House. That is what should remain.