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

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

When I first looked at the Bill, I initially thought that it was badly drafted. As has been mentioned on several occasions, it has been described as a dog’s breakfast, and I initially thought it was even less nutritionally useful than that. I have now come to a different view. I think it is a well-drafted Bill, because it serves several specific purposes, none of which actually is the purpose that we think the Bill should serve in terms of cleaning up lobbying, sorting out third-party funding and regulating the way in which the political process works for elections and parties.

Part 1, as several hon. Members have suggested, ought to be the subject of further discussion and broadening out. The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) made an excellent speech in which she set out the extent to which lobbying seems to have made a substantial difference in her constituency on a particular issue close to her heart. Of course, such lobbying not only cannot be included under the definitions in the Bill but has been designed out of it. The title of the Bill includes the phrase “transparency of lobbying”, which will mean that people think the Government are doing something to sort it out, but the long title shows that it is only about “consultant lobbying”, excluding 97% of the real lobbying that goes on in and around this place.

The Liberal Democrats said in their election manifesto that they would:

“Curb the improper influence of lobbyists by introducing a statutory register of lobbyists, changing the Ministerial Code so that ministers and officials are forbidden from meeting MPs on issues where the MP is paid to lobby”,

but I am sorry to say that they have ended up as a human shield for a Bill that is trying to minimise the changes that can be made. It is a damage limitation Bill, not a change to lobbying overall. Those hon. Members who think that they will take part in a process over the next couple of weeks whereby we have a dialogue for change have already lost. The Bill seeks to limit the process by which lobbying can be changed, which is what the public expect this House to be dealing with. It does so to such an extent that it is mendacious about its real effect on lobbying.

Part 2, unlike part 1, was not long in gestation. Indeed, it turned up out of a bright blue sky two days before the House went into the summer recess. Its effect comes from the opposite form of drafting. The drafting of the regulations and amendments is so loose and vague that third-party lobbyists, campaigners and organisations will, as hon. Members have said, probably self-police to ensure that they do not inadvertently get caught by it.

Do not get me wrong—I think that it is important that we take further action on lobbying of Parliament by third-party groups. Hearing some of the discussions this afternoon, one might think that the process had only started with this Bill, but such groups are subject to considerable regulation under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Bill states that people can be caught retrospectively for undertaking action, particularly at a local level, in the year before an election and can be judged for so doing by the Electoral Commission. Believe me, the last thing the commission wants to do is to get involved in political judgments about who has been doing what at a local level and in local elections. Those people will be subject to all sorts of registration penalties which they never thought they would have to undertake.

My view, on balance, is that the drafting is deliberately vague to ensure that pesky groups do not come along to constituencies during an election period and start campaigning on the doorstep about parties that might have a few worries about their approach to the election.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. The Bill attacks the most important parts of civil society: charities, non-governmental organisations, pressure groups and trade unions. It might well be unlawful under articles 8 and 11 in schedule 1 the Human Rights Act 1998; but of course, the Government would like to get rid of the Human Rights Act as well. This is a fundamental attack on civil society.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am tending towards that view. As has been said, the Bill should be a matter of careful thought. Indeed, over a long period there has been substantial and careful thought about third-party campaigning. Nevertheless, the Bill has been the subject of no consultation, not even with the Electoral Commission on how it would carry out this rag-bag of proposals without putting itself in an impossible position. Turning up without consultation or warning is just not the way to organise and regulate third-party campaigning at elections.

Part 3 seeks further to regulate trade unions to count their membership in a way that they already do. I wonder what that is about. That seems to be dog-whistle politics that says, “We are putting further impediments in the way of trade unions, which are already doing what they are supposed to do, but we are taking action as though they weren’t.”

Overall, this is a shocking Bill, which goes 100% away from what we should be doing to regulate lobbying and about the process of third-party campaigning and civil society. We really need to take the Bill away and think again. I hope that we will vote to do that today, to get a Bill that we are in favour of—

Business of the House

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The House will have been shocked, as my hon. Friend no doubt was, by the report. The House, through the Backbench Business Committee, was able to debate child sexual exploitation last week. The issue has been debated, but we must press forward, and my colleagues are doing so with the tackling child sexual exploitation action plan and other measures. The interim report made a number of recommendations that we must pursue. We must also look at the recommendations from phase 2 next year, but be ready now to take all the action we can, as illustrated by my hon. Friends’ response to last week’s debate.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), during a statement earlier this week, called for a full debate in Government time on the situation in the middle east. The response of the Leader of the House today was as incoherent on the issue as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were in trying to justify not supporting Palestinian statehood. This is a serious situation with a fragile ceasefire, the threat of a ground attack and 160 dead. May we have a debate as soon as possible?

[Mr Lansley]

We will of course consider that. I had a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) and he was clear in encouraging us to consider having a debate on the middle east. I have not been able to find time now, but it is open to hon. Members to seek such a debate using the time available to the Backbench Business Committee. Likewise, it is open to the Opposition, which has time for a debate next week should they wish to use it for that purpose. I think what I said was simply a reflection of what has been said many times by the Government and was repeated by the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday: what we want to do is secure the best possible progress in negotiations and use the ceasefire to make progress quickly. His response illustrated that urgency and the Government’s view that precipitating a vote at the United Nations was not necessarily the best way of making progress.

Business of the House

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have two days on the Finance Bill, including a debate on Third Reading, when that might be possible. I would welcome such a debate. The Prime Minister said yesterday—at this Dispatch Box, I think—that he believed in flatter, fairer taxes, which is why we have taken 2 million people out of tax altogether, reduced corporation tax and now have a lower top rate of tax to make Britain competitive with the rest of the world. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend’s contributions on Third Reading of the Finance Bill on Tuesday.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Could we have a debate about health service reorganisation and cuts, including plans to close four of the nine accident and emergency departments in west London, where the local NHS says that without closure they will

“literally run out of money”?

The right hon. Gentleman will know these hospitals very well, as hospitals such as Hammersmith, Charing Cross, Central Mid and Ealing served his former constituents, and they are much needed by the people they serve.

[Sir George Young]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I had an interest in the area he now represents. We are putting more resources into the NHS than were planned by the Labour party, but I will share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman about the proposed rationalisation to which he refers.

Cabinet Secretary Report (Government Response)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The recommendations apply not just to the permanent secretary but, for example, to the private office as well. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for this new procedure and I hope that it is one that I do not have to follow too often.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

How is what the Leader of the House has said about conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest and the ministerial code be consistent with the approach the Government have taken in the case of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who has been relieved of those areas of his portfolio where such a conflict might occur?

[Sir George Young]

That matter has been dealt with by the Cabinet Secretary.

Standards and Privileges

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barron]

That is true. The commissioner commented on that claim in his memorandum, and it was taken into account when we came to make the recommendations that are before the House.

The right hon. Member for Yeovil was in breach before the financial contributions that I have described, by wrongly claiming that his main home was in Somerset rather than in London. It is clear that he was not the only Member who designated the wrong property. When the pattern of nights spent at two properties were changing, it would be easy to assume that the main property was the one on which a mortgage was held. If that were the main issue in the period up to 2006, it might easily have been put right, but the problem was that the right hon. Gentleman’s conduct was designed to hide his real circumstances, which formed a pattern with his later breach of the rules.

There has been a great deal of press comment on this case, much of it before the Committee reported. It has been suggested that the right hon. Gentleman saved the public money, and that that makes his conduct all right. It is certainly possible that other, proper arrangements might have been more expensive. Clearly, there could have been substantial claims against the Somerset property, but they were not made, so we cannot know precisely what would have been approved. We must judge the arrangements that were actually in place, not arrangements that might have been made. As the report says:

“Mr Laws contends that the payments were lower than they would have been had he claimed on his Somerset home, or made other permissible arrangements. In our view, it is inappropriate to judge whether the claims on property A are appropriate by reference to potential payments on another property, which is not in fact claimed for.”

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Committee has dealt with the false representation allegations—the appropriateness of the penalty, which hon. Members are here to judge, does not matter—but my submission is that it has not dealt adequately with the quantum of claim, other than by saying that the rent was above the market rent and that there were

“contributions towards building repairs and maintenance”.

The Committee and the commissioner did not go into the fact that the rent was up to 50% more than the market rent, or that sums of up to £100 a month were being charged for each of council tax, utilities, parking the car in the driveway, maintenance repairs and the purchase of capital equipment. Why has the Committee not dealt with those sums on aggregate? That is a huge amount of money for a lodger to pay to his landlord.

[Mr Barron]

My hon. Friend may wish to comment on that further, but I wish to make my comments on behalf of the Committee.

What is clear is that the rents charged to the public purse were excessive, and that charges were made for repairs that would not have been included in any normal rental arrangement. It is impossible to tell exactly how much more was charged than should have been, but that is because of the right hon. Gentleman’s desire for secrecy.

Business of the House (Thursday)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. To answer her very direct question, I fear that we will not have enough time to examine that, and many other aspects.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Notwithstanding the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has just said on Channel 4 that his conscience is clear—so he would presumably like to debate this subject at length—does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why this debate is being curtailed is to protect the Liberal Democrats? The clue to that lies in what Chris Davies MEP says in his blog:

“Splits weaken parties, and sometimes destroy them. The reputation of the Liberal Democrat brand is being undermined with each passing hour as the impression grows stronger that on the issue of tuition fees we are not only divided but clueless…In short, we are creating the impression not just of being weak, but of being a joke.”

We should share that joke with this House, if we had sufficient time to debate this issue properly.

[Hilary Benn]

The point that my hon. Friend has just made illustrates clearly why we need more time tomorrow to examine the position of the Liberal Democrats, in all their splendour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I will respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) before I take any further interventions. She raises precisely the type of matter that needs to be explored properly and fully in the debate tomorrow. The fact that we will have inadequate time means that we run the risk of its not being addressed.

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I was about to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter).

[Mr Slaughter]

As the debate goes on, does it not become obvious how grotesquely short five hours is? It took the Liberal Democrats an hour and a half in Committee Room 11 yesterday to narrow down their voting options to four. It will take five hours for the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to explain the different positions that he has taken in interviews over the past week. My constituents want us to get on to the real issue, which will not happen in a five-hour debate.

[Hilary Benn]

It certainly will not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

It certainly does. As my hon. Friend says, there is a serious issue here. If the public do not think that we have properly considered the matter, it will not build their trust and confidence in Parliament, and it certainly will not build their trust and confidence in the Government—it will damage it.

[Mr Slaughter]

Does my right hon. Friend know that the Deputy Prime Minister is now on Sky News saying that he would love to get rid of university tuition fees, but that he lives in an imperfect world? He says that he hopes that tuition fees will go in the future and blames the Labour party for not supporting him in the past. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party would be happy to vote with him tomorrow against the motion? Should the Deputy Prime Minister not be—

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have listened very patiently to this entire debate. I seek your guidance on whether we can hear repeated any more outbursts on what is happening in corridors and on Sky News, which has nothing to do with the timetabling of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

I am sorry that the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) had the discourtesy to interrupt me in that way. The point I wished to make is that it is a discourtesy to the House for the Deputy Prime Minister to be on television doing a mea culpa and trying pathetically to justify himself, rather than being here and explaining why we have only five hours to debate the matter.

[Hilary Benn]

Indeed. Given the number of things that the Deputy Prime Minister has had to say about the tuition fee increase that he intends to vote for tomorrow, the very least he could do is to come into the debate. I hope that he might be able to participate, because many people would like to hear how he explains the change in attitude—the 180° turn—that he has performed in a very short space of time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I do not wish to get off the subject of the debate, and my hon. Friend tempts me to do so. Clearly, Mr Speaker would rightly pull me up if I were to start talking about the health of the Business Secretary, which has no relevance to this debate. However, I must say that the Business Secretary is a very nice gentleman, so we should all be concerned about his health and the difficulty that he is clearly going through on this policy.

[Mr Slaughter]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is relevant that barely 10 Liberal Democrat Members have been in throughout the debate? The latest estimate is that 100,000 students will be coming tomorrow, yet nobody on those Benches has the courtesy to listen to the debate. Five hours seems to be as long as they are prepared to give to this issue tomorrow. Is that not hugely disrespectful to all our constituents, who care about this issue?

[Mr Jones]

I note what my hon. Friend is saying but, again, I wish to stick to discussing this business motion. I would not want Mr Speaker to pull me up for being tempted to go down a path that would not be in order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

It is important to put this business motion into context. It is a Government motion that seeks to regulate the business and sitting of the House, and page 368 of “Erskine May” sets out the details about such motions clearly, stating:

“Such motions, which do not have precedence…are normally moved by the Leader of the House and invariably require notice”.

We have clearly had notice of tonight’s motion. Indeed, we had notice of an alternative motion this week, but unfortunately the Government did not move the first motion that they tabled.

“Erskine May” continues by stating that the motions regulating business are, first,

“those…referred to specifically in Standing Order No 15 (exempted business), which are moved at the interruption of business”.

The second type is also described on page 368.

“Erskine May” continues:

“Under recent practice, such motions are more commonly moved in the ordinary course of the day’s business in relation to the business proposed for a future day, in which case notice is given as for any other notice of motion. Typically, such motions may set a time limit for a future debate”—

that is clearly the intention of the Government’s motion tonight—

“and may provide for the putting of questions by the Speaker after a certain period or at a specified time.”

That last point relates to the limit of 5.30 pm tomorrow. It goes on to say that such motions “may be complex”. According to “Erskine May”, the purpose of such a motion may be

“To give precedence to government business over private Members’ business either on a particular day or days or for a period, for example, until the end of the financial year.”

[Mr Slaughter]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend is moving towards the recommendation of a specific time limit. If he is, I urge him to consider that eight hours might be more suitable than five, because according to a poll by The Sun, eight hours would allow one hour for every 1% of support that the Liberal Democrats now have among the people of this country.

Business of the House

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

As my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor is planning to issue a White Paper, or possibly a Green Paper, on sentencing policy. I hope that that will provide a framework for the debate on which my hon. Friend has just launched himself.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The cumulative effect of the Government’s housing policies on security of tenure, near-market rents and capital expenditure, as well as housing benefit, is the greatest threat to social cohesion for a generation. I would not go as far as the Mayor of London and describe this as Kosovo-style social cleansing for fear of upsetting the Deputy Prime Minister, but may we have a debate—in the Chamber, not in Westminster Hall—on social cleansing and gerrymandering in our inner cities?

[Sir George Young]

It is important to use careful language in the debate about housing benefit, and the use of phrases and words such as “social cleansing” or “Kosovo” in that regard is not appropriate.

I do not think that it is going to happen. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in many parts of the country, private sector rents are set to hit the cap. It follows that, in many parts of the country, when the cap comes down, so will the rents. There are discretionary grants, to which I have referred, to help families in his constituency who have difficulty with the social reform. Despite what he says about Westminster Hall, it is an appropriate forum in which to debate these issues. The Opposition have an Opposition day in a fortnight’s time and they are entitled to debate housing benefits, if that is their priority.

Business of the House

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an important issue. It may be possible for him to raise those important issues in the debate on the CSR that I have announced and get a response from my hon. Friends.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman, who is a former Housing Minister, may have noticed these comments by the chief executive of Shelter on the CSR:

“The government is denying responsibility for an entire generation’s ability to access affordable housing”.

Given the near-market rents for new social tenants, the lack of security, the 16% cut in capital funding and the cuts in housing benefit, when can we have a full debate on the Floor of the House on housing for a future generation, for which this Government are the first to abdicate responsibility?

[Sir George Young]

We have just had Communities and Local Government questions, when the Housing Minister said that during the 13 years of Labour Government there was a net gain of 14,000 affordable homes over 13 years. If one sets that against the 150,000 affordable homes which, following the CSR, we hope to provide over the next five years, that puts a slightly different gloss on the hon. Gentleman’s point.