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

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I do not have a legal brain, but it might be possible to sort that out. My view is that if, in the course of a conversation, somebody makes a general point about how things can best be moved forward, that is hardly the same as saying, “Here is the mobile telephone number. I’m sure the Minister will meet you for lunch.” or, “How about we have a catch-up over coffee and I will tell you all about this new project I’m trying to push in your area.” I do not feel that those two things are the same.

I am willing—as, I am sure, are many hon. Members—to take on board any improvements that make the Bill deliver what most of us want it to deliver. We can put exceptions and guidance in the Bill, and I included in the new clause clarifications such as

“anything done in response to or compliance with a court order;

anything done for the purpose of complying with a requirement under an enactment;

a public response to an invitation to information or evidence;…

a formal response to a public invitation to tender;

anything done by a person acting in official capacity on behalf of a government organisation;”.

I have tried to include exclusions, and I am more than happy for people to add others if they think they could word the new clause better. We want to get rid of cosy chats, pressure behind the scenes, and people with the big money—£12 million in my constituency has been spent in trying to get this through, which is probably peanuts compared with some other industries.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs Main]

I am just about to draw to a close because I would like to hear about the amendments tabled by other Members. This is not about filibustering or talking out the Bill today.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Even that most brutal sport, boxing, has a code of honour so that when an opponent is bloody, battered and exhausted, they are not kept in the ring but we try—if we can—to deliver the coup de grâce. I do not like witnessing the parliamentary equivalent of propping up the opponent. In virtually every aspect, this Bill is battered, bloodied, and ready to fall over. Rather than the grizzled cornermen, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the House are pushing in some game bantamweights to keep the fight going. They are good people, but they are not here today. They are putting other people up to argue for a Bill that was not their doing. Rather than that, we should end this cruel sport and do what the all-party Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform proposed, once it was allowed to report and get engaged in this process. It proposed that the Bill be put into a special Committee so it that could be discussed and got right—not delayed, but brought back to the House as a new Bill that does the business for everybody—within six months. I argue that there would be a strong consensus behind that new Bill.

We have worked hard and I pay tribute to my Committee, two members of which—the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn)—are present in the debate. Other members are on shift to come and do their turn over the next three days. Both they, and members of staff who worked incredibly hard to get a report in front of Members in about seven working days, deserve the utmost credit.

I believe in evidence-based policy making. Through that period of about seven days, we called for, sought and proactively received evidence that provided a welter of overwhelming information to say that the Bill does not work or do what it promised to do. This Bill does not do what it should say on the can—I do not know whether the Trade Descriptions Act applies in the House of Commons, but if it did there would be a strong case for putting somebody at least in front of a magistrate. This is not the lobbying Bill, it is the 1% lobbying Bill. Most of the problems that have been identified across the House, in the media and elsewhere, will not be affected or tackled by the Bill.

As well as producing a massive wodge of evidence for Members to interpret, my Committee also proposed a number of amendments designed to make the Bill what it should be—a genuine lobbying Bill. In clause 1, as part of our long debate over the next three days, we are attempting to ask: who are the lobbyists? When one lobbying group’s trade association says, “We think maybe 20% of lobbyists will be covered” and another says, “1% of lobbyists will be covered”, there is clearly a massive welter of people who do what we normally think of as lobbying but who will not be covered.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

I would like to understand how many people the hon. Gentleman believes will be required to register as a lobbyist under the proposals that he and his Committee have put forward.

[Mr Allen]

Under the Government proposals, the Public Relations Consultants Association says that fewer than 1% of meetings with Ministers take place by consultants without the clients present. Transparency International states that the Government are not even going to capture the 20% of the industry that they have identified as the reason for the register. One can choose whatever figure one wishes.

On the earlier intervention by the Deputy Leader of the House, I say gently that this is not a choice between 100% of everything we regard as lobbying being registered and enormous bureaucracy, and 1% being registered. Let us grow up, have a debate, and find a happy medium. It does not have to be perfect the first time, but it certainly does not need to be as imperfect as this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

In following the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), let me say that I am surprised that he did not rest his rebuttal of the arguments about amendment 76 on clause 4, which clearly shows that the register—in the way it deals with persons—would cover those exact points. However, that does not fully allay the concerns we should have when we see the Government’s amendments to what is already a highly flawed Bill, not least Government amendments 92 to 95 to schedule 1, about which I am sure we will hear from the Government.

Like others, I do not want to take up too much time now, given the range of issues that we need to reach in order to deal with the layers of inadequacy and evasion that are, to my mind, deliberately built into the Bill. The Government who told us that lobbying was the next big scandal have basically come up with the narrowest of nets to deal with professional lobbying, restricting it not to professional lobbying as we all know and understand it—lobbying as we see it practised in and around the parliamentary estate and elsewhere in public life, at various levels of government—but to a narrow definition of “consultant lobbying”.

We have a net that is deliberately narrow, made up of holes that are deliberately wide. That is why I welcome the amendments from the Opposition Front Bench and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which would ensure a wider net with smaller holes. If Parliament achieves that, we will have done something for our credibility, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said. However, if we remain with the Bill as provided by the Government, or if we amend it in the way they have proposed, Parliament will be open not just to ridicule, but to suspicion. Why would we go along with a glaringly inadequate Bill? Why would we fail to respond to the representations that have come from so many people in the business who will not be affected—I am sure that some will be happily unaffected—but are bemused at what the Government have produced in part 1?

I know that we looked at the Bill more widely on Second Reading, Mr Caton, but I hope it is in order to make the argument in the debate about this group of amendments and part 1 that it is hard for people not to be suspicious when they see the lobbying to be registered so narrowly defined in part 1, and the issues to be covered in part 2 so widely scoped. As many hon. Members who have spoken have pointed out, none of the lobbying scandals that have happened in recent years—not even those during the life of this Parliament—would have been ameliorated or mitigated in any way by the scope of this Bill. Instead of pretending that it will solve the next big scandal, let us be clear: it would not have addressed any of the big, small or medium scandals that we have seen in the last few years. That has to be a matter of design on the part of the Government. They cannot have missed all those points just as a matter of haphazard chance and sloppy drafting. To my mind, the scoping in part 1 is deliberately evasive.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

The Government have already said that they are trying to fix a specific issue relating to a gap in transparency. I do not think I got an answer from the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), so can the hon. Gentleman explain how many people he thinks will be required to register under the amendments we are discussing? Does he believe that MPs should also make a declaration whenever they meet a lobbyist, be they in-house, or from a trade union or a charity?

[Mark Durkan]

As other hon. Members have said, we do need a lobbying Bill, but we needed more consultation and proper pre-legislative scrutiny precisely to determine how many people would be caught and whether they should be comfortably caught under this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

This has been a fascinating debate, and I shall not repeat the points that have already been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) and other colleagues across the Committee. I want to bring some of my own experience to the Chamber. Fundamentally, what is wrong with this part of the Bill is that it does not reflect any kind of understanding of the lobbying industry, of which I am a proud ex-member.

The lobbying industry has changed dramatically since I first joined it in 1998. I worked for a consultancy that, if it existed today, would be caught by the Bill’s provisions because it was a dedicated Government relations lobbying agency. However, the industry has changed and most public affairs firms are now part of wider communications groups, on which the Bill will have no impact. I worked in the industry between 1998 and 2003, and it gave me a fantastic opportunity to learn many things and to engage in the political process.

We should be clear that the lobbying industry is important to a fair and democratic society. It is also important to us as Members of Parliament, in that it can help to inform and educate us on incredibly technical issues. We should not always view the industry with deep, dark suspicion. The only point in the debate that I have disagreed with so far was the description of lobbyists as mendacious and as performing some kind of dark arts. That is incredibly unfair, because most lobbyists are highly professional and very proud of what they do. They want transparency in their industry, and they want a level playing field. The Bill delivers neither. If anything, it could make the industry more opaque, and it will certainly not produce a more level playing field.

I would like to give the House an example from my own experience. Between 2005 and 2010, I was head of public affairs for Aviva. It was known as Norwich Union when I joined it, but it subsequently changed its name. We had a large lobbying team here in the UK and in Europe. As I look around the Chamber, I can see many people whom I, as head of public affairs, probably would have lobbied.

My lobbying team would not have been covered by the provisions in the Bill. We employed a major City law firm to provide specific counsel on legislative issues. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon has pointed out, such lawyers will not be covered by the Bill either. We also employed a consultancy that provided public affairs advice and was part of a wider group; it, too, would not be included in the Bill. We worked closely, too, with trade associations, which again would not be included. If we paid for research by a think-tank and lobbied on the outcome, that, too, would not be included in the Bill.

It is therefore quite clear that this part of the Bill needs to be taken off the table and looked at again, particularly in respect of expanding the definitions. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Opposition Front-Bench team’s amendment, as does the Association of Professional Political Consultants, because it wants a level playing field. Those of us who have worked in the industry consider ourselves professional lobbyists, not just consultant lobbyists.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but does she agree that the transparency shown by publishing ministerial diaries, including the companies that Ministers meet and the purpose of the meetings, fulfils that role, and that trying to extend the law is effectively using a sledgehammer to crack a small nut, which concerns the PR industry in particular?

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s concerns, but I think she is debating something we are likely to discuss next week. Does she agree that we should not allow the conscience of Russia and China to be our conscience when we are considering potential action?

[Lorely Burt]

I entirely agree. I am not suggesting that we take no action; I simply think that we must have international approval before taking that step.

Having bombed supposed chemical weapons sites, what then? With all that human suffering, surely we should intervene further. As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) commented, would we really want to allow President Assad to win? Several hon. Members have expressed concern about military action and they, like me, fear mission creep. Not every member of the public has researched these issues in detail, but they have a strong feeling. Only one person in four supports military action. Members of my own party are fearful of that and have urged me to vote against. Even the chambermaid at my hotel yesterday, before I left my family holiday in Wales, said to me, “Please don’t let them vote for war.” I will not.

In summary, I do support action, as I said to the hon. Lady, but under the present circumstances, not a military solution.

EU Council and Woolwich

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 3rd June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

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

Thank you for your patience, Mr Speaker.

Let me ask the Prime Minister about energy, which was a big part of the EU Council. It is important that we take advantage and encourage the Commission to deregulate so that we can exploit our own resources not just in this country but in other countries, too, so that we are not reliant on states outside the European Union for our future energy needs.

Tributes to Baroness Thatcher

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great privilege to contribute to the debate. I have spent the past several hours, since 2.30 pm, here in the Chamber listening to the extraordinary speeches. I want to single out my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who spoke so eloquently and movingly about when Mrs Thatcher visited troops in a military hospital in Northern Ireland. I also want to thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. This may sound like a bit of creeping; it is not intended to be. As on many occasions he just got it right, as in the mixing in of lightness, reflecting the personal touches that Margaret Thatcher brought to her role as Prime Minister in Downing street and in Parliament. I also want to thank the Leader of the Opposition. He paid a very generous tribute today, and reflected well on the element of statesmanship that we should all aspire to.

There is no question but that Margaret Thatcher defined politics for a decade, if not a generation, if not a lifetime. There are two other people I want to thank today. I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing the debate to happen. I also want to thank the chaplain for the prayers that were said, which I thought were very special.

Margaret Thatcher was certainly an inspiration to many in this place, and many in the country. Even now, the polls after her death show that more than half the population thought she was a great Prime Minister; any party leader and Prime Minister would hope for such ratings. I expect that every Conservative Member elected in 2010 mentioned Margaret Thatcher as an inspiration in their selection speech. In fact, I expect those people who did not probably did not get selected. Dare I say it, although the great lady of course left office in 1990, her legacy lived on, and there is no doubt that the members of our party loved Margaret Thatcher, and I believe they were right to do so.

Of course Margaret Thatcher broke through the glass ceiling, becoming the first woman Prime Minister. It is said that she found it harder to become a Member of Parliament than she did Prime Minister, but both were herculean tasks, which she achieved, with the help of her male friends, some mentioned already—such as Airey Neave, who was assassinated—and the help and support of others. To her end she would encourage people to enter public and political life, and I think many women in Parliament today are here for that reason.

Of course, Margaret Thatcher was the only science graduate to be Prime Minister. History or perhaps thinking about the weight of history was not for her. In fact, she made history. Her skills as a scientist, in the use of data and rigorous analysis, were an important part of what persuaded her. Her view could be changed if someone had the facts, rather than the emotions of other subjects.

I read chemistry at Oxford and I chose her college, because I had fallen in love with Margaret Thatcher by then. I had done so because I grew up in Liverpool. Hon. Members have talked about communities transformed, and we have heard about the success of entrepreneurs and small business. Opposition Members may think that we look back through rose-tinted spectacles, but people’s lives really were changed. People were released; they were allowed to choose, to get on and to be free.

Of course there were impacts on communities, particularly those reliant on one major employer or industry. I lived in Liverpool when the riots happened. They did not affect my neighbourhood but they affected school friends, one of whom was supposed to come to stay with us to get away from the horrendous things that were happening. I also remember Derek Hatton, who said the most despicable thing yesterday. What I remember of him is that he destroyed my city. Militant Labour was the employer involved, and my parents, both teachers, were among the 30,000 who received their redundancy notices overnight. I have been hearing about how people were cast aside, but militant Labour tossed aside the clerk, the cleaner and the street sweeper, as well as the teacher. That is when I woke up and realised that politics mattered, and the following year I got involved in a by-election. Admittedly, the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) won that, but I stood up; I saw that Margaret Thatcher was leading the country and making a huge difference to people’s lives, and I wanted to be part of it.

The constituency I now represent perhaps benefited from some of the issues arising from the militancy of the dockers’ strike in Liverpool. Similar things happened elsewhere. Felixstowe grew as a port during that time. When Mrs Thatcher came to Felixstowe in 1986 to speak at the Conservative central council she referred to the modern industrial relations that the good trade unions had with their employers at the port of Felixstowe. We see the same thing now in much of our manufacturing industry, where some of the unions are working well. However, one thing she did was to ensure that it was the democratically elected Government who ran the country, bringing to an end to the closed shop, the “all out” and the flying pickets that crippled industry at the time.

I do not believe that Margaret Thatcher hated the state. What she hated was the state telling the people what they should want. She wanted the state to serve the people and put their needs first. She trusted people to choose. Her very first speech was about the private Member’s Bill in which she opened up council meetings to the press and the public; she made sure that happened. She also did things such as putting parents on school governing bodies so that they were involved in the direction of the schools. She had backed the police, of course, but she had recognised that there was trouble there and that there was a need to reinstate trust, so in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 she introduced the tape recording of evidence sessions. She started to bring those kinds of reforms in where they were needed.

Above all, Margaret Thatcher put the “Great” back into Great Britain, at no time more so than during the Falklands war. She believed in ideas and she trusted the people. She put that choice to the electorate three times, and the British public backed her, with an increasing number of votes from 1979 to 1987. She was truly my heroine. Margaret Thatcher, may she rest in peace.

European Council

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There was an understanding, particularly among the net contributor countries, that it was time for proper budget discipline and that previously countries had gone to these MFF negotiations and not focused on the fact that if we were controlling our budgets at home, there was a case for doing it properly in Europe. I am delighted we were able to achieve that.

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

Today is indeed a triumph for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I congratulate him—also, I might say that his wife designs very nice handbags, albeit out of my price range. Does he agree with the shadow Chancellor, who told the Yorkshire Post:

“If we allow ourselves…to be the ‘status quo party’ on Europe, or the ‘anti-referendum party’…we’ve got a problem,”

and that

“we would be pretty stupid to allow ourselves to get into either of those positions”?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point: we have a clear plan in place for sorting out reform in Europe and putting that reform to the British people. The accusation against us is that this could cause uncertainty, but the argument I would make is this. What could be greater uncertainty than Labour’s position? One minute the Opposition are in favour of a referendum and the next minute they are against it. They really have to sort out their position, come to the House and tell us what it is.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

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

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will give way to the hon. Lady; it is not male primogeniture any more.

[Dr Coffey]

I believe that the website of the royal household states that the Church of Scotland is established, but that Her Majesty is an ordinary member and not its Supreme Governor.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, but that does not change the fact that when somebody becomes monarch, they have to make an accession oath on the Church of Scotland. That is my only point. We have a suite of legislation and once we start pulling at one of the elements of it there is a danger we will unpack the whole lot.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. Clause 1 is absolute common sense, especially in today’s world. It is a welcome step and I am pleased that it is my Government who have introduced it, though admittedly with cross-party support.

I will spend most of my speech addressing clause 2. I say at the outset that I support an established Church in this country and am happy for it to be the Church of England. Indeed, the whole question of who is eligible to be the heir to the throne or, indeed, to be the sovereign of our nation rests on their Church of England faith. In addition, much is connected with marriage—indeed, it was arguments with the Pope back in the 16th century that led to the establishment of the Church of England, which led to the thorny issues that we are examining today and, let us not forget, to several hundred years of persecution of people on the basis of their faith.

I recognise that the Bill is a symbolic gesture, and on those grounds I welcome and support it, but we should also recognise that it is only a token gesture: the person who will benefit from it is the person in line to the throne, not necessarily their children or, indeed, their spouse, if they are of the Catholic faith. Although I do not pretend to be a canon lawyer, there are certainly things that we need to explore along those lines. It is somewhat ironic that the two Ministers leading the Bill through the House are both self-proclaimed atheists. I suppose that means that they are able to take a dispassionate view of the Bill, but perhaps they do not understand the sensitivity or frustration felt by people of faith about the entrenchment and discrimination that the Bill will undoubtedly perpetuate.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that, ultimately, the monarch, regardless of whatever rules Parliament creates, governs with the consent of Parliament and the people, and that plenty of monarchs, regardless of what the statute of their day said, have found to their cost the error of no longer having the consent of Parliament and the people?

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend, who is also of my faith, makes an excellent point. Of course, the situation he describes led to the execution of a monarch in times past. Frankly, the person with whom they replaced him is one of the people whom I am determined to write out of parliamentary history at some point, if possible by removing the statue outside. We will leave that debate for another day, but it is not only because he banned Christmas—we can just imagine how miserable he was.

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) seems to share his concern. It was interesting to hear the hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) ask why someone being deemed the Supreme Governor of the Church of England is invalidated by their not being a member of the Church of England. Would a member of the Church of Scotland or the Church in Wales have to convert formally to the Church of England to take up the role of sovereign? I know that Her Majesty takes her faith very seriously—that is one of her many admirable qualities.

[Chris Bryant]

My history of Parliament is coming out next year, just to inform the hon. Lady that there is no point in her writing one now.

The main reason why a monarch has to have a relationship with the Church of England is that they have to be crowned. The coronation service is provided for in canon law, and therefore in statute law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and look forward to seeing his book. I see him in the Library regularly, where I assume he is researching it assiduously.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will note the fact that the title of Defender of the Faith was originally granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo X in 1521. It was then rescinded nine years later, after Henry VIII decided to remove himself from the Church of Rome. It was Parliament that restored that title in 1544.

[Chris Bryant]

At the King’s insistence.

[Dr Coffey]

Indeed, but it still decided to do so.

Of course I will not oppose the Bill, and I welcome large parts of it, but the point that I am trying to make is that we should not pretend that it is some great second Catholic emancipation that will remove any particular discrimination.

The question was raised today about what would happen if a future sovereign chose to marry outside the Church of England, of if they chose to marry somebody of the same sex under other legislation that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office are taking through the House. That marriage ceremony would not be recognised by the Church of England under the proposed laws, so what would it mean for their being the Supreme Governor of the Church of England in future?

I do not wish to get into personal things, but it is not a state secret that the Deputy Prime Minister has married a Catholic and his children are being brought up in the Catholic faith. That matter is taken seriously in various parts of canon law, and although, as I said, I do not pretend to be a canon lawyer, I wish to make various points about that. Back in 1970, in the motu proprio on mixed marriage, the Church acted to remove automatic excommunication as long as people tried to ensure that their children would be brought up Catholic. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) will be relieved to know that in the same motu proprio, the penalty for parents who sent their children to non-Catholic schools was removed. Although his alma mater produced a martyr in the Reformation, one cannot say that that school is a Catholic one. I am sure he is about to intervene on me.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I think Henry VI would disagree with my hon. Friend on that.

[Dr Coffey]

I am sure that the bishop who confers confirmation on the majority of pupils in Eton college is not the Archbishop of Westminster.

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister referred to certain royals who had married Catholics. Again, I do not want to get too personal, but one of his examples was a marriage that was dissolved and then annulled a year later; within a month, the same people had married, but the Pope had refused dispensation for marriage in a Catholic church on the grounds that the person who could have been heir to the throne had written explicitly that his children could not be brought up in the Roman Catholic Church but would be brought up in the Church of England. As we know, centuries of back and forth between the Church of Rome and the monarch of England meant that five years later, Pope John Paul II allowed that situation to be validated, which I am sure was welcome.

Such things happen the other way. My grandfather in Godmanchester was brought up as a Salvationist but became a Catholic to marry my grandmother in Dublin. I appreciate that sometimes the Church of Rome can be demanding the other way in wanting to encourage marriages of similar faiths. However, I diverge. My point is that it is important that the Government realise how, in matters of faith, making bland statements about people in church marrying those of a different religion could automatically dismiss the important religious views of the spouse to be. When one of the people due to be heir to the throne married a Catholic, that Catholic converted to the Church of England—out of love, I am sure, for her future husband—but we should not take such issues lightly. This provision is a welcome step, but we should acknowledge that although it removes one element of discrimination, it will entrench others until we have a fresh Act of Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for a most compelling debate that has highlighted the gravity of the changes we are making to the UK’s constitution by removing two pieces of discrimination that must not remain on our statute book. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said when opening the debate, the Bill is in many ways about equality. It turns a page on centuries of discrimination and prejudice on religious and gender grounds in one of our most important institutions—the monarchy.

It falls to me to respond to a number of the important issues raised. First, I welcome the support shown around the Chamber, including that of the loyal Opposition. I also welcome the range of experience that came through in the comments made, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is no longer in his place, and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames). I welcome the passion that has been shown by Members such as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who is also not in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), even though they were on different sides of the debate. I also welcome the erudition shown by Members such as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and—need I mention him—my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg).

Let me begin on the point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) finished: he asked what would happen if an heir to the throne were to marry a Muslim or somebody of any other faith. That is possible today and the Bill should not raise further fears. We should be able to accept, debate and deal with that question in the 21st century.

I want to start with the implications for the established Church of the changes we have discussed today. I reassure all hon. Members that the changes proposed in the Bill are limited to removing the bar on marriage to a Roman Catholic. I think all Members know that. The Bill does not allow a Roman Catholic to accede to the throne and in no way touches the basis of the established Church. Indeed, the Church of England has made that clear in its own words. I have already quoted the words in the other place of the Bishop of Blackburn, which are helpful to our debate.

Various points were made about the Church of Scotland that raised some interest across the Chamber. I understand that the Church of Scotland does not define itself as an established Church, but I shall not go further into that debate as I do not have time to do so. I reassure the House, however, that the Church of Scotland, among others, was consulted in the course of our work.

Various Members raised the possibility of an heir entering into a mixed Anglican and Catholic marriage and discussed what would happen under Roman Catholic canon law. Some feared that that could lead to a constitutional crisis, and I want to reassure them. There is an example of that in the royal family in Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella Windsor, the son and daughter of Prince Michael of Kent. He married a Catholic, but the children have been brought up in the Anglican communion. I suggest that that is a pragmatic example in the modern monarchy. I would not dream of taking on my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, but I note that various guidance has been published in the intervening years that might provide practical advice.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

My hon. Friend refers to Princess Michael of Kent. When Prince and Princess Michael married in 1978, they did not marry in a Catholic church. That was corrected five years later, after her children had been born.

[Miss Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying that point for the edification of our colleagues, but I do not see how that detracts from the main point that it has been possible to take a pragmatic view of how the modern monarchy must function. We have already spoken about the relevant guidance, which suggests that one should do one’s best to have the children raised as Catholics but that there could be just and reasonable cause for not doing so. The protection of the place of the established Church is a rather large cause and some colleagues mentioned that. The Church of England, as I have said, has made it clear that the requirement to join communion with the Church of England is not affected by the Bill. The Archbishop of Westminster has confirmed that he recognises the importance of the position of the established Church in protecting and fostering faith in our society.

Leveson Inquiry

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I would also argue that one of the other problems with the political class is never saying sorry when they get it wrong. On 13 November 2012, the hon. Gentleman spoke about the

“deal…secured between the Conservative party and News International”.—[Official Report, 13 November 2012; Vol. 32, c. 553WH.]

We have heard not a word of regret from him. What matters most about this is putting in place a regulatory system that can make the victims proud. That is what is necessary. The fines, the apologies, the proper investigations—that needs to be done and it can be done right away.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. There is a lot in the Leveson report that is to be welcomed. I share my right hon. Friend’s caution, but does not another important part of the evidence presented by Lord Leveson show that some of the smears against my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) were absolutely outrageous, including the Leader of the Opposition saying that he was a back channel for Murdoch?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Time after time we were told that my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) was backing the bid, not adjudicating on the bid. All sorts of allegations and smears were made. It is important that colleagues can read the report and see that he took the right decisions in the right way.

European Council

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

This is an ingenious idea that others are also pursuing. It is a complex picture, because Britain is one of the few net contributor nations. We need to look at the starting point. We are the second largest net contributor, which is why our rebate and our tough position on that policy is completely justified.

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

The Prime Minister is being accused of being an isolationist, when, in fact, we do not need to be part of the banking union discussions because we are never going to enter the currency. Will he confirm that, on a lot of other points, we are at the heart of the discussion, including on keeping the European budget down?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely intelligent point. The creation of the single currency has created a different dynamic in Europe. Inevitably, if countries are not in and do not want to join the single currency, they will not be involved in every single discussion about the future of the single currency. That is what has created different pathways in the European Union. We must be mature about and accept that fact, and think, “Now we know it, how can we best protect and defend the British interest in the EU?” She makes a very important point.

Hillsborough

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. It deserves a proper, thoughtful, considered answer, which is what we should try to address in this debate in the House of Commons. As has been said, there was a public inquiry, a coroner’s inquest and, quite rightly, by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), a judicial inquiry into what had happened, yet these processes did not turn up what the Bishop of Liverpool and his patient panel, with the full disclosure of information, have turned up. We need to ask ourselves why that happened. What needs to change when we investigate these things? I do not have the answers today, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary can think deeply about it before the debate in October.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend and the Leader of the Opposition for their courageous statements and apologies. Tears of sadness will still be shed in Liverpool, but tears of relief will also be shed that the unvarnished truth is finally out. I remember being a schoolgirl in Liverpool and people were shell-shocked by what happened that day, and that feeling will continue for many years to come. I am equally shell-shocked by the suggestion that 164 statements were doctored by the police, which suggests a level of criminal conspiracy that is absolutely shocking. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ask the Home Secretary and whoever else can make this decision to start pursuing criminal charges against the people involved?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my hon. Friend had a school-friend who died on that terrible day and I quite understand why she speaks with such power and force about it. The figures on the police statements are shocking. We all need to take time and read the report in full and try to see the full detail of what happened on that day. Obviously, any decisions about prosecution are for the relevant authorities but, as Members have said, it is shocking to read this. In the time that I have had this morning, I have not been able to go through it in great detail—I have seen the overview of what the panel has found and had a meeting with the Bishop of Liverpool last night—but even that completely takes your breath away when you read some of the things that he has found.

EU Council

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Before we get to the referendum question, we must ask the prior questions of what exactly Britain wants in Europe, what we have at the moment, what we would like to change and how we can best change it. All those prior questions need to be asked before we get to the vital question of how to secure the full-hearted consent of the British people.

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

More Eurocrats work in education and culture than on the internal market and services. Will my right hon. Friend stand up for hard-pressed British taxpayers and ensure that our scarce resources are directed towards jobs and growth by completing the internal market?

[The Prime Minister]

The depressing statistic my hon. Friend gives is important as we go into the budget negotiations. We must ensure that the EU budget is focused on things that are likely to help with growth, such as the single market, rather than on regulation. She makes a very good point.