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

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Jon Trickett

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett]

My hon. Friend has made a powerful point about the way in which the Bill that became the Health and Social Care Act 2012 was prepared. As we know, the private health industry operated substantially behind the scenes in preparing the ground for that Bill. We also know that the legislation has led to a variety of actions that seem to have introduced an increasing amount of engagement in the NHS by the private sector, but that is not the point that I am addressing this afternoon.

The Government’s decision to limit the register to consultant lobbyists will lead to a narrowing of the register, because it excludes nearly all the lobbyists who are working professionally in our country today. Indeed, it would deepen the shadows that many people believe fall wherever the industry practises. Our amendments will seek to make the register universal and transparent and make what the lobbyists are doing transparent, by bringing the whole of the professional industry into daylight.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I am a little puzzled as to the distinction drawn in the hon. Gentleman’s amendments between the terms “consultant” and “professional”. Can he explain the difference?

[Jon Trickett]

I will explain it, but it is not too difficult to understand. I have met and consulted representatives of the whole of the industry, and they have told me that only a tiny proportion of the industry are so-called consultant lobbyists—third-party lobbyists or, as it were, hired guns. Professional lobbyists who work in-house will not be covered under the definition in the Bill, which is why we feel the use of the term “consultant lobbyist” narrows the Bill’s scope.

Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Jon Trickett

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett]

Yes, I get the red carpet regularly, but only on the way back out.

I will quote two Prime Ministers, neither of whom are from my party. I am not in the habit of quoting Prime Ministers from other parties, but these quotations are quite relevant. More than a century ago, Gladstone said that “an MP who does his duty to his constituents has very little time for anything else”. Of course, MPs were all men in those days. In 2009, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) said that it was

“necessary to demonstrate 100 per cent focus on Parliament, politics”.

We can all agree that being an MP is a profession that requires an enormous commitment of time and energy.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett]

Fiduciary duty requires the person who sits on a board, or who is a consultant to a company, to act in the best financial interests of that company. MPs swear an oath of loyalty to the country and to their constituents. Let me illustrate the problem as I see it. Were an MP to find themselves on the board of, or be a consultant to, a tobacco company—to take an example at random—they would be bound by a fiduciary duty to pursue the financial interests of that tobacco company. Let us imagine proposed legislation to improve public health, which would be damaging to the interests of the tobacco industry, being introduced in the House of Commons. The perception of a conflict of interest would arise in the public’s mind. An explanation would have to be sought on the way an MP chose to vote, particularly if the remuneration received—as is the case for some hon. Members—is two or three times greater than the remuneration they receive as an MP. The public’s perception would lead to only one conclusion.

It is in order to tackle this problem that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has taken decisive action. From 2015, all Labour MPs will be banned from having directorships or consultancies for third-party commercial interests. I hope that other party leaders will see the sense of what we are proposing and move in the same direction.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jon Trickett]

I will on that point. I invite the hon. Gentleman to set out what he would say to the hundreds of young people under the age of 24 in his constituency of Dover who have no job, when he defends the right of MPs to have several jobs.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I would say to them that I do not have outside paid jobs. I am a Member of Parliament. My only job is as a Member of Parliament. Why did the hon. Gentleman, in 2009, vote against a ban on outside interests? Why is he doing a U-turn?

[Jon Trickett]

The House will have noticed that the hon. Gentleman has not said that he will vote with the Opposition to regulate second jobs. He acknowledges that there are hundreds of young people without a single job, and he has failed to address the central moral question. I would like all-party agreement on the Opposition’s proposal, but it looks like Government Members will not respond to it.

There are those who will make the valid argument that Members of Parliament need to remain connected to the world beyond Westminster. The problem is to my mind best resolved by having a set of MPs who represent far more diverse backgrounds than we have at the moment. For example, about 60 MPs went to 13 fee-paying schools.

Lobbying

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Jon Trickett

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett]

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 (Dover) (Con)]

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]

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.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Jon Trickett

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett]

Of course it is, and I am baffled by that intervention, given that I have just said that section 40 allows for an appeals system to be introduced in due course. What was envisaged was a proper coronial system with an appeals process and a chief coroner who would have authority over the whole system. The Government are seeking to stop that logical process, which could be tested first by a pilot, and to put in an illogical system, with a chief coroner who would effectively be reduced to a purely administrative post.

In response to a series of parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests, Ministers have revealed that at no stage have the Government estimated the likely costs of additional judicial reviews, as opposed to an appeals system. On that basis, it is odd to argue that savings will be inherent in this decision.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Surely having a right of appeal would just mean more cost and delay. The really important role that the coroner has had historically is to make a judgment and provide closure. Is not that the most important of the coroner’s responsibilities?

[Jon Trickett]

The two interventions have been revealing. Both interventions, and the Minister’s original speech, envisage more judicial reviews taking place in the absence of a proper and orderly appeals process. The problem with judicial review is that it is more expensive than the appeals system. It can take years and it is burdensome, bureaucratic and emotionally painful to the bereaved families. The average cost to an individual is £30,000. We are talking about people, such as families of service men and women, who may want to contest the decisions of a coroner. Under clause 40 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, there is a simple system that allows for an appeal to the chief coroner, which would create a precedent for the whole coronial service. Rather than that, the Government are resting their case on the fact that the appeal process will go through judicial review. That is not an appropriate way in which to handle a very sensitive service.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He is being typically generous and kind. Judicial review is not a form of appeal. Sometimes it is used as collateral challenge, but it is not a form of appeal. It is used when there has been a procedural irregularity. The key message must be that the whole point of the coroner system is to get closure so that people can move on with their lives. A person has to get leave to apply for judicial review, and they must show that there has been some procedural irregularity or proper grounds for that kind of action to be taken.

[Jon Trickett]

The British Legion, which is closer to any of the service families than we are, says that it would prefer an appeals system. The hon. Gentleman has to say why he thinks that he understands better the needs of bereaved families than the British Legion. I suggest that he does not understand better, and nor do I. It is better to defer to the judgment of the British Legion.