Lobbying Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Leader of the House

Lobbying

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts
Tuesday 25th June 2013

(10 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jon Trickett Portrait Jon Trickett
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I will give way in a moment.

After the reshuffle, not a single Minister was left with a formal duty to bring forward the reform to which the Government had committed themselves. When we called this Opposition debate, we could therefore have had a sweepstake in the office on which Minister would speak on behalf of the Government, because none of them had formal responsibility for lobbying after the reshuffle. At the top of our guess list was the Deputy Prime Minister, but he was not too keen. In fact, he is nowhere to be seen this afternoon. We then thought that it might be my opposite number, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, because that is where the Bill is supposedly being drafted. He is nowhere to be seen either. We then thought that it would have to be the Minister for political and constitutional reform, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith). She is in the Chamber, but I see that she will not be speaking. None of the above will be responding. Very unusually, the Leader of the House will be speaking on this Opposition day. It seems that he was the last one standing when the music stopped.

Charlie Elphicke Portrait Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
- Hansard - -

Getting back to the subject of the debate, which is lobbying, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not right for parliamentary passes to be given to lobbyists?

Jon Trickett Portrait Jon Trickett
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The funding of political parties is being discussed—[Interruption.] Let me come to the point. That matter is being discussed in another place on a cross-party basis. Financial relationships between political parties and lobbyists clearly ought to be a matter for regulation. I believe that financial relationships between individual Members of Parliament and lobbyists should be outlawed, but I will come to that point in a minute.

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Lansley Portrait Mr Lansley
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

That is an important point. My personal view is that we should not be doing that. I do not wish to engage you directly in this debate, Mr Speaker, other than by way of approbation. I thought it was absolutely right that you made your proposal in the light of recent press allegations. In particular, it was absolutely right that you considered the question of the number of passes made available to sponsors of all-party parliamentary groups and asked the Committee on Standards to consider the matter. I had planned to refer to that in a moment.

Charlie Elphicke Portrait Charlie Elphicke
- Hansard - -

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Lord Lansley Portrait Mr Lansley
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As I am referring to this point, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Charlie Elphicke Portrait Charlie Elphicke
- Hansard - -

I want to underline my support for the idea that no lobbyist should have a parliamentary pass. In particular, nine Labour MPs sponsor parliamentary passes for union lobbyists. Does my right hon. Friend join me in condemning that, and will he say, here and now, that it is wrong?

Lord Lansley Portrait Mr Lansley
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As Leader of the House, I have made it clear, along with my colleagues, that parliamentary passes should be made available for the purpose of supporting Members of Parliament in their parliamentary responsibilities, not for the benefit of third parties. It is not to conflate unrelated issues for the Government to focus on this issue of third-party influence in the political system. The process must be transparent. If third parties are involved, as inevitably they will be—that includes trade union relationships with the Labour party, which are absolutely fine—it must be transparent and not convert what should be a transparent third-party relationship into the undisclosed control of, or influence over, parliamentarians.