Business of the House

Damian Collins Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The plastic bag tax has led to a 90% reduction in the use of plastic bags. The cause and effect has been quite striking. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the question of where the money goes and what charities benefit. I am sure he can raise the issue in Treasury questions in due course.

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

At Digital, Culture, Media and Sport questions earlier this morning we were pleased to see the Secretary of State watching proceedings from the Gallery. However, I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that it is not common at departmental questions for a Secretary of State to be in a position from which they can be seen but not heard. Although the Select Committee will be able to question the Secretary of State, I wonder whether the office of the Leader of the House has given any previous consideration to what to do in such a situation. For example, might we from time to time have a special session in Westminster Hall, during which Members could question Secretaries of State who sit in the House of Lords? Will he allow time for a debate to see whether this House could support such an innovation?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Procedure Committee produced a report on this matter a few years ago. It is perfectly normal to have departmental Ministers in the House of Lords—it is something that both Houses have coped with over many centuries. With regard to reforming our procedures, it is for the Procedure Committee to look into that again, but there are many means by which Ministers and the Government can be held to account. [Interruption.] Yes, absolutely in this House. As my hon. Friend said, the Secretary of State will appear before his Select Committee, which will be one way of doing it, and a full Bench of Ministers were here to respond to oral questions earlier.

Privilege

Damian Collins Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Leader of the House for bringing forward this motion today. As she said, this process was initiated by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee as a consequence of Dominic Cummings’ refusal to appear in front of the Committee when invited to do so and when a formal request had been issued by the Committee. When the House passed the motion on 7 June, this ceased to be a dispute between Dominic Cummings and the individual Select Committee and became a dispute between him and the whole House of Commons. He has refused to comply with a motion of this House to appear before a Select Committee. That motion expressed the will not just of me as Chair of the Committee and of the members of that Committee but of the whole of the House of Commons, which supported the motion.

These are incredibly serious matters. It is quite something when an individual decides that their judgment should be set above that of the democratically elected Parliament of this country, and that they have the right to disregard a motion of this House and to decide if and when they should give evidence to a Select Committee of the House and on what terms. That is unacceptable. For most people in this country, it would never get to that stage because they accept an invitation to appear before a Select Committee, and even if there are sometimes disputes about the date or the time involved, they decide to come. Anyone who holds a position of public trust—be they the holder of a public post in government or a public authority, or the leader of a company who is accountable to shareholders, investors or a broader group of stakeholders—can see that responding to a request from Parliament to explain their actions or those of their organisation is part and parcel of their job. That convention has been established, and it is increasingly important to the work of the Select Committees, whose job is not simply to hold Government Ministers to account but to pursue inquiries that are of public interest.

Our inquiry into disinformation and fake news threw up some important and serious issues that we wanted to talk to Dominic Cummings about. In some ways, however, this is not about our inquiry or the work of our individual Committee; it is about the right of Parliament to issue requests for people to give evidence to its Committees and for those requests to be complied with. The Committee of Privileges will now consider not only the conduct of Dominic Cummings and the way in which he declined our request but also the general contempt with which he treated the Committee in correspondence when he was engaging with us.

What should the rights of the House be when someone refuses to respond to a motion of the House regarding their giving evidence to a Committee? What sanctions should be applied? I believe that there has to be a final sanction—a final backstop. It is probably not for elected politicians in the House of Commons to be issuing fines and summonses or setting penalties or punishments for non-compliance, but there has to be a next step. There has to be some kind of sanction for someone who has been blatant in their behaviour and their language and in the contempt that they have shown for Parliament. This serious matter has now been referred to the Committee of Privileges, and this is bigger than just considering the response to Dominic Cummings; it now involves a wider consideration of the powers of the House when we are put in a situation such as this.

Privilege

Damian Collins Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of the Third Special Report of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (HC 1115); and orders Mr Dominic Cummings to give an undertaking to the Committee, no later than 6pm on 11 June 2018, to appear before that Committee at a time on or before 20 June 2018.

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for allowing the motion to have precedence today. As we all know, the function of this House is not just to vote on and pass legislation, and to debate Bills and matters of public interest, but to hold Ministers to account. There can probably be no Parliament in the world that provides more consistent or closer scrutiny of Ministers’ work than the House of Commons, but it is the work of Select Committees to continue that scrutiny, and to question and hold Ministers to account. Indeed, plenty of Ministers have got themselves into trouble as a result of evidence they have given to Select Committees. The additional privilege of the Select Committees is not just to question members of the Government, but to call anyone whose role, position and power in society makes them a matter of interest and a subject of interest for our inquiries. The ability and power of the Committees to invite people to give evidence, and to issue a summons for them to appear to give evidence where necessary, is vital to the work of the Select Committees of this House.

Having checked with the Clerks of my Committee and with the House of Commons Library, I believe that this is the first time since 1920 that a motion of this kind has been put before the House. It has not been done lightly; in some ways, it is done with regret, because I wish we had not come to this point and that we could have reached a successful conclusion to the invitation we issued to Dominic Cummings before now.

It might be helpful to the House if I explain why we are in this position. In March, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee issued an initial invitation to Dominic Cummings to give evidence to us as part of our investigation into disinformation and fake news. I should say that we are not conducting an inquiry into the referendum. We are not seeking to invite people who worked on campaigns for the Brexit referendum to give evidence, or to scrutinise the details of those campaigns. We are conducting an inquiry, and an important part of it has been the use of data in the course of campaigning. During our investigations, other witnesses have come forward and made allegations about the work of Vote Leave; as Dominic Cummings was its communications director, he is the person most fit to speak about that. In many ways, what we are seeking to do is to extend a privilege that many Committees do extend to witnesses: when allegations are made about them or their organisation, they are given the ability to come before the Committee to refute those allegations and present alternative evidence. That is the opportunity we wish to give to Dominic Cummings, but we also believe it is the right of the Committee to have the opportunity to question him, based on evidence that we have already received.

We were unable to reach a satisfactory conclusion from the invitations we issued to Mr Cummings. As a result, we proceeded to issue a formal summons, which was passed by the Committee. Mr Cummings not only refused to accept that summons and to appear on the named day cited in it, but refused to consider alternative dates on which he might appear and to which the Committee might have agreed. He also made it clear in public remarks that he had no intention of ever coming to give evidence to this Committee and that he resented the way in which he had been treated. That left the Committee with no alternative but to seek to report this matter to the House, and to seek the support of the whole House of Commons—not just the Committee—for a motion ordering Mr Cummings to appear before us.

We felt that Mr Cummings had taken the view that appearing before a House of Commons Select Committee is not a matter for that Committee, but entirely at the discretion of the proposed witness, with it being up to him to set the time and date, even though that might be months after our inquiry has finished. Not only does that restrict our right and ability to question witnesses who have important information linked to our inquiries, but it fails to give us the opportunity to question people based on evidence that has been received and tabled against them.

Is our relationship with Mr Cummings uniquely bad? Have we treated him unkindly, whereas other Committees of the House may have treated him more favourably? He has even suggested he would be willing to come—at his discretion, and at some future point—to give evidence to another Committee.

Interestingly, Mr Cummings has given evidence to House of Commons Select Committees before. He gave evidence to the Treasury Committee in the last Parliament, and it is relevant to look at its report following the evidence he gave. That Committee took evidence from a number of parties and campaigns involved in the Brexit referendum, to analyse the arguments they were making. In chapter 7 of that Committee’s report, at paragraph 236, the Committee sets out the similar frustrations it had, even though Mr Cummings had agreed to be a witness. It stated:

“In their treatment of this Committee, neither Mr Elliott”—

also from Vote Leave—

“nor Mr Cummings, as individuals, have fulfilled Vote Leave’s commitment, made in their successful application to the Electoral Commission, to ‘create a valuable legacy for the UK’s democratic process’. Their conduct has been appalling. Mr Elliott’s and Mr Cummings’s expressed view that powers should be restored to Parliament sits ill with that conduct.”

The report goes on to state:

“It was the Committee’s preference to hear from both Vote Leave and Leave.eu in one sitting. In the end, it took three. If Mr Elliott and Mr Cummings consider that the Committee’s evidence-taking process has been protracted, uncomfortable or harmful to their cause, they have only themselves to blame.

The Committee notes that Mr Banks and Mr Tice”,

of Leave.eu,

“did not seek to attach conditions to their attendance.”

That is very similar to the experience we have had.

As a consequence of evidence we have received, we have also asked other people to give evidence to the Committee. We have asked Mr Banks and Mr Wigmore from Leave.eu to give evidence, and they have agreed to do so next week. We asked AggregateIQ, the tech company from Canada that Leave.eu used to work on its campaign, to give evidence and it has done so, even though the person giving evidence was a Canadian national who is based in Canada, and so was outside the jurisdiction of this Parliament and had no obligation to attend. Nevertheless, that person crossed an ocean to do so. Yesterday, the Committee took evidence from Alexander Nix of Cambridge Analytica, who was returning to give evidence to the Committee about links and relevant issues.

It therefore seems that we have a unique problem in requiring Dominic Cummings to come to give evidence to us. I do not believe, and neither do the members of my Committee, that that is an acceptable state of affairs. These are incredibly serious matters. There is a certain irony when someone who was the communications director of Vote Leave and ran a successful campaign to seek to restore powers to Parliament seemingly holds that institution in such contempt.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have issued his notice to Mr Cummings on the side of a bus, because he might then have seen it and come to Parliament.

[Damian Collins]

I will not go down that road or follow that bus. As I say, this is not necessarily directly about that campaign, but there is a certain irony when someone who campaigned to restore powers to Parliament is not willing to come to Parliament to give evidence before one of its Committees. This is someone who, in his campaign, was so critical—many would say rightly so—of European civil servants and bureaucrats exercising power remotely, unelected and unaccountable to any institutions. He held a very important position in this country during a very important campaign. We believe that we have important questions to put to him, but he declines to appear. He did suggest in his initial communications, after we invited him in March, that he might appear at some point later in July. He has subsequently said in his public statements that he will not appear until other investigations—those being conducted by the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner, in particular—have concluded.

There are rules that prevent Committees from calling witnesses, but those are normally restricted to matters before the courts. This matter is not sub judice. Mr Cummings has not been charged with any offence and he is not in proceedings before the courts. We sought guidance from the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner, given their ongoing inquiries, to ask whether our calling him to give evidence would in any way undermine the work of those investigations. They have said that it would not, and that they would welcome it if Mr Cummings gave evidence to the Select Committee, so there is no founded excuse there. Whatever he says, his decision not to come before us is one of his own making. It is a deliberate attempt to deny Parliament its right to question witnesses on matters of importance. That is why we have brought the motion before the House—to stand up for an important point of principle; and to support the work of the Select Committees and their inquiries across Parliament. We are seeking to maintain the right that we should have to call witnesses when we believe it is important to our work and in the public interest for them to give evidence before us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her point. Even in other jurisdictions where people can be compelled to appear, they are not compelled necessarily to answer a question. For Mr Cummings to have behaved in the way that he has is a grave contempt not only of this House but, more importantly, of the British people.

[Damian Collins]

For the benefit of the record, Alexander Nix came back to the Select Committee yesterday to give evidence. We were concerned that he had said things that were not consistent with the evidence we had received, and he came back to correct the record and to answer our questions. He was also under investigation by the Electoral Commission, the Information Commissioner and other agencies and other jurisdictions. He managed the process perfectly well, answering questions where he felt he could and giving guidance where he felt that there were things he could not answer—there were very few of those. Even with someone under investigation who has not yet been charged with an offence it is perfectly possible to conduct a successful hearing.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point.

In closing, I pay tribute again to all those who do appear before our Committees and take the opportunity to thank all members of Select Committees for the work that they put in and all of our staff who do a magnificent job in supporting us. Thank you.

Privileges

Damian Collins Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I wish to say a few words as a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee during the inquiry in the last Parliament into phone hacking at the News of the World.

First, the case against Tom Crone and Colin Myler is compelling. It is based not on one evidence session where there may have been a slip of the tongue or a piece of misleading information given; this was a systematic attempt to mislead Members of the House and members of the Committee over many years—over two parliamentary inquiries—and, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, for which Tom Crone and Colin Myler have shown absolutely no remorse or regret; actually, in many ways, they believe they have done nothing wrong.

Without going through all the incredibly complex work that was done by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee ahead of the Leveson inquiry in looking at the knowledge and extent of phone hacking at the News of the World, one simple thing is really clear, and it shines out in the Privileges Committee’s report as well: the evidence that condemned Colin Myler and Tom Crone—that condemned News International—always existed within the company itself and was always within reach of the executives of that company. In fact, the killer piece of evidence, which the Select Committee requested that News International’s lawyers, Farrer, produce and release, was a memo written by Tom Crone himself and attached to a legal opinion by Michael Silverleaf, QC, which lays out in black and white, extremely clearly, that phone hacking at the News of the World was not restricted to one journalist, but widespread throughout the organisation. There was a cultural problem, they all knew about it and they systematically lied about it over a number of inquiries, with repeated opportunities to give oral and written evidence.

The Leader of the House is right to say that incidents of contempt of Parliament and of people being requested to be brought to the House happen rarely, so we should reflect on this report and on the evidence the House has received. It is clear that this is a serious matter—it went on for a long time—and there should be some sanction. On serious inquiries such as this—the inquiry on phone hacking, which was an issue that affected many people’s lives—it should be a presumption that witnesses, when they appear before the Committee, are telling the truth, and are compelled to tell the truth, and that if they seek to lie, and repeatedly lie, there is some very clear sanction against them.

I am pleased to hear what the Leader of the House has said. It really is time that there was a clear process that the House should follow whereby people face some sanction if they are found to be in contempt of Parliament and to have lied to Parliament. That might, as he suggested, follow the example of the United States Congress, where the matter is referred to the courts for them to decide what further action should be taken. There should be some clear sanction in law. Witnesses should have regard to the fact that when they give evidence to Parliament they are compelled to tell the truth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Farrelly]

I agree with my hon. Friend. That highlights the long record of Ms Brooks coming—or declining to come—to give evidence in this House. We have taken issue with such evidence.

In evidence to our Committee in July 2011, Ms Brooks repeated one central assertion:

“the fact is that since the Sienna Miller…documents came into our possession at the end of December 2010, that was the first time that we, the senior management of the company at the time, had actually seen some documentary evidence actually relating to a current employee.”

The Sienna Miller civil case was seminal in terms of disclosure. Ms Brooks went on to say:

“It was only when we saw the Sienna Miller documentation that we realised the severity of the situation.”

Yet we know that, by then, News International had plenty in its possession to suggest that hacking was widespread, including the Silverleaf opinion. We know that Rebekah Brooks personally negotiated the big out-of-court settlement with Max Clifford, which was all wrapped up in confidentiality, just days after our 2010 report. As the Privileges Committee report records, we know that she was present with other people from News International at the meeting of its lawyers Farrer and Co. on 20 January 2010 that was held to discuss Mr Clifford’s civil claim.

[Damian Collins]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Tom Crone’s role as legal manager would surely be to act on behalf of the company to gather whatever advice he needed to advise whoever within the company—senior executives at all levels—of impending issues and problems, and that it is therefore right to assume that he would have made his opinion and that of Michael Silverleaf available to anyone he felt he had to make them available to?

[Paul Farrelly]

I thank the new Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. There are disputes within the company about who told what to whom at what time. If he will bear with me, in a moment I will come on to something about which there has been no dispute.

We know, too, that back in 2006, when Rebekah Brooks was editor of The Sun, the police informed her that her own phone had been hacked. Courtesy of evidence submitted to the Leveson inquiry in February 2012, we know that she had a long conversation with a police source that was relayed to Tom Crone and then by him in an email to Andy Coulson on 15 September 2006. That email referred to more than 100 victims across all walks of life, not just the royal family, who would have been of interest to royal reporter Clive Goodman.

On reviewing all the lengthy correspondence the Culture, Media and Sport Committee received at the time, it is clear that Rebekah Brooks led us a merry dance for nine months before our 2010 report, saying that she would give evidence in person and then declining. In her final written reply to the right hon. Member for Maldon, on 8 February 2010, she had this to say about what had been known at News International from the police about the extent of hacking:

“I understand that, at some stage between the arrests of Mr Mulcaire and Mr Goodman on 8 August 2006, and their first appearance in court on 29 November 2006, it became known, from information provided by the police, that Mr Mulcaire had accessed the voicemails of people other than Royal Household employees. It was not known how many.”

Compare that to the email from 15 September 2006 that was cited at Leveson. She does not say that it was she herself who received the information from a police source, and the final sentence appears to be a complete untruth. The email cites 100 to 110 victims—a very precise number. Did Mr Crone simply make that number up for Mr Coulson after talking to Ms Brooks? It all certainly contradicts the central assertion that the Sienna Miller case was Ms Brooks’s moment of epiphany about the severity of the situation, four years later. Along with the other replies that Ms Brooks gave us—not least over the cost indemnity arrangements with Mr Mulcaire after he was sacked—this also merits closer analysis than was evident, I am afraid to say, in the Privileges Committee’s report. On all those grounds, I believe that the Privileges Committee is wrong in being “unable to draw” the conclusion that News International misled us, and is rather premature in not considering it

“to have committed a contempt.”

As far as parliamentary privilege is concerned, what is important now is what happens in the future. In chapter 8 of its report, the Privileges Committee is quite right to note that the work of the 2013 Joint Committee has not been taken forward. When we on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee were finalising our 2012 report, as the right hon. Member for Maldon mentioned, we summoned the Murdochs to appear in front of us, as we knew they were in the country to apologise to the family of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler over phone hacking. The uncertainty over our step was what to do if they declined to come. While we were finalising our report, we asked time and again for advice on what sanctions might apply in this day and age for misleading a Select Committee. Too often, I am afraid we found that in the reality behind the rhetoric, the parliamentary emperor apparently had no clothes. That situation needs to be readdressed urgently.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House—

(i) approves the First Report from the Committee of Privileges (HC 662);

(ii) having regard to the conclusions of the Committee in respect of Mr Colin Myler, considers that Mr Myler misled the Culture, Media and Sport Committee by answering questions falsely about his knowledge of evidence that other News of the World employees had been involved in phone-hacking and other wrongdoing, and therefore formally admonishes him for his conduct; and

(iii) having regard to the conclusions of the Committee in respect of Mr Tom Crone, considers that Mr Crone misled the Culture, Media and Sport Committee by giving a counter-impression of the significance of confidentiality in the Gordon Taylor settlement and by answering questions falsely about his knowledge of evidence that other News of the World employees had been involved in phone-hacking and other wrongdoing, and therefore formally admonishes him for his conduct.

That the matter of the exercise and enforcement of the powers of the House in relation to select committees and contempts be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Collins Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

One treasure that I hope will not be liquidated is the hon. Gentleman. I hope he will not be liquidated by the Momentum campaign in Stoke and that he will be reselected. We are all praying for him on this side of the House. In answer to his question, it is obviously up to individual local authorities, but they must adhere to the code of ethics of the Museums Association. I take a very dim view of local authorities getting rid of their heritage assets, particularly those that have been left to them by prominent members of the community.

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

There have been numerous resignations from the board of London 2017. Has the Secretary of State had the chance to discuss the reasons for that with London 2017, and does he have any concerns about its working relationship with UK Athletics?

[Mr Whittingdale]

This is a matter that we keep under review, but I have not had a chance to discuss it recently. I will certainly look into it further and discuss it with the appropriate authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Collins Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch]

Football is nothing without its fans, its volunteers and the communities that it works in. It is important that we celebrate and honour those who dedicate their lives in a variety of different ways to football, so I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Mr Amos on all that he has done to serve the Northern league.

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

Will the Minister say when the report from the expert working group will be published? We were hoping that it would be published at the end of last month. While the arrests in Zurich this morning highlight the problems in the governance of world football, there are still many concerns about the governance of football in this country, too.

[Tracey Crouch]

I can certainly give an indication about when I expect the report. If anything, I owe the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) an apology, because in my response to this question last time, I said that it would be published before his Bill comes before the House tomorrow. I have received a copy of the report. It has been done by football for football, so it is only right that the football authorities that need to look through it are given the opportunity to do so. I expect that to be done within the next three weeks and that the report will be published in January.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Collins Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am aware of reports of concerns about the workers who are preparing for the World cup in 2022 in Qatar, but I understand that Qatar has put in place measures to ensure that their welfare is protected. We will no doubt continue to monitor that matter carefully and I will certainly look at any further concerns that have been expressed.

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

Many people believe that FIFA will be incapable of reforming itself and that an independent reform commission should be established. Would the Secretary of State welcome the establishment of such a commission, and would the Government be prepared to offer any assistance that that commission needed?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I share my hon. Friend’s view that those currently involved in FIFA are probably least equipped to advise on how it should be reformed, and there may well be a case for the kind of independent body that my hon. Friend advocates. We would be happy to discuss that further, should FIFA ask us to do so.

Lobbying

Damian Collins Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

There have been some interesting and thoughtful contributions to this debate. We must acknowledge the Prime Minister’s perception when he predicted that lobbying would be

“the next big scandal waiting to happen”.

However, despite the bluster and sticking out of chests on the Government Benches, the coalition has had three years to bring in legislation, but a register of lobbyists was again noticeably absent from the recent Queen’s Speech. Let us be honest: it was only the most recent scandal exposed in the “Panorama” documentary that led the Government to consider introducing a Bill before the summer.

Let me read out a quote:

“It is vital that we act quickly and decisively to restore the reputation of politics. Too much unacceptable behaviour has gone unchecked for too long, from excessive expenses to sleazy lobbying practices. The people of Britain have looked on in horror as revelations have stripped away the dignity of Parliament, leaving millions of voters detached from the political process, devoid of trust in the political classes, and disillusioned with our system of government.”

That is a statement from the Conservative party manifesto; it is not very often that I agree with anything I read in there. That was the commitment that the Conservatives made in recognising the problem and that something needed to be done about it. So what has happened? We have had three years of Conservative-led coalition government and we have seen precious little action in relation to that commitment. We saw the former Foreign Secretary resign over the Werritty scandal and the cash-for-access case in which the Conservative party treasurer, Peter Cruddas, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), offered “premier league” access to the Prime Minister for £250,000 a year. It is not a distinguished record. I am not shirking our responsibilities. The documentary that was broadcast quite recently was shocking. It related to one Member from this place and three from the other place, two of whom were members of my party. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Some sanction needs to be applied against such individuals. Clearly, there is the ultimate sanction for a Member of the House of Commons, but for those in the House of Lords there is no really effective sanction.

There are a number of things we have not done. Despite the warm words from Government Front Benchers, we have not curbed the improper influence of lobbyists, changed the ministerial code to bar Ministers and officials from meeting MPs on issues where the MP is paid to lobby, or required companies to report their annual spending on lobbying. I think that a Liberal Democrat Member referred to that; indeed, it was a promise that the Lib Dems made.

There can be no trust in politics when the public believe that politicians are for hire to the highest bidder. After the most recent scandal, all Members of Parliament holding directorships, advisory positions and consultancy roles are viewed with suspicion, whether that is justified or not. I want to put down a marker about second jobs and MPs spending in excess of 20 hours a week working outside Parliament. That raises questions about whose interests they are really serving. I do not have time to work 20 hours outside this place; I put all my efforts into representing my constituents. I do not know how Members can take up directorships and consultancies. That must put a question mark into the minds of their constituents; if not, it should.

All Governments have been tainted by the revolving door of former Ministers and special advisers who, in retirement, find themselves in lucrative jobs with companies they once dealt with as Ministers or advisers. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) in his Westminster Hall Adjournment debate on 2 November 2011. In my opinion, this is nothing short of corruption—the same kind of thing that we would condemn in other countries across the world.

The cosy relationship between some politicians and lobbyists was clear to see when the Prime Minister invited professional corporate and private health care lobbyist Nick Seddon into the heart of Government. Whose interests will Nick Seddon serve following his previous roles as a deputy director of Reform, which is listed as a free-market think-tank extensively funded by private health care and insurance companies, and as head of communications at private health care company Circle? Does that name ring any bells with anybody? At the heart of Government, corporate interests are over-represented to the detriment of the public. We do not want to be running a corporate plutocracy in the United Kingdom. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for his article in today’s Morning Star. It is an excellent piece that makes some terrific points about the excesses of corporate influence in the United States.

I recently witnessed this kind of corporate influence in action during the east coast main line debate. No matter how much public opposition exists against the privatisation of rail services, a Government who have surrounded themselves with advisers and lobbyists with corporate interests and connections remain fundamentally wedded to a policy of open competition in all public services, prioritising profits over people. Where is the voice of the public being represented?

I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will, like me, have received many hundreds of e-mails and representations from constituents regarding the Government’s proposals on plain cigarette packaging. I found it absolutely extraordinary that within weeks of the appointment of professional lobbyist Lynton Crosby, who had apparently lobbied against plain tobacco packaging in Australia, as the Conservatives’ election strategist, there was a change in policy. The links with private health care companies are wide and extensive in this House. As I said in an intervention, the Our NHS campaign reports that one in four Conservative Lords and at least 58 Conservative MPs have recent or current financial links to companies or individuals connected to private health care. Over 30 of the companies who are listed as corporate partners of Reform have recent or current financial links to Lords and MPs.

It is not the miners but corporate lobbyists at the heart of Government who are the enemy within. They undermine our democracy, which is increasingly becoming a plutocracy with access to Government and decision making going to the highest bidder and corporate interests at the expense of the public.

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

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument carefully. I think that he needs to be careful, and the whole House needs to take care, in defining who lobbyists are and what their interests are. Several times he cited Reform, which is an independent think-tank with a cross-party board set up in the same way as many other think-tanks across politics, such as, in the past, the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Smith Institute, which have been aligned with the Labour party. That is very different from talking about someone who is a paid-for corporate lobbyist working for a professional lobbying company or an individual company. We must be careful about this.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention. The point I am trying to make is that nothing is always as it first appears. Quite frequently, all-party groups are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Often, think-tanks with certain financial backers are coming up with certain policies, and when we look at who is funding them we can see why that is happening. Perhaps I could have selected a better example. If I was wrong, I acknowledge that.

The overwhelming majority of lobbyists understand and even welcome the need for a statutory register. They understand that in a democracy, the Government need to be open to influence from all parts of society. I have always considered myself to be the voice of the unheard. There is nobody else to speak up for the people I represent. It is right that we should speak for the smallest community group as well as listening to the point of view of the largest commercial operator. We should hear from everyone, from individual citizens to multinationals. We want an engaged, interactive citizens’ democracy. Without robust statutory regulation, the perception will continue that big business, the powerful and the few are able to gain private access to the decision makers at the expense of everyone else.

I hope that the motion will receive the support of the whole House, given its emphasis on cross-party negotiations, the implementation of a statutory register and a clear code of conduct that is backed by sanctions in the event of serious breaches of the code. I will leave it at that to give others a chance to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The House of Lords, when considering what it could do about the expenses scandal, discovered that it had the right to imprison a peer for a Session. It decided that it must therefore also have the power to suspend a peer for a Session. However, it may only do that Session by Session. It cannot expel a peer because a peerage comes from the sovereign, whereas our position in this House comes from the people to whom we can be sent back. To get rid of a peerage requires primary legislation. That was done in 1917 to remove a group of peers who were fighting for the Germans and the Austrians during the first world war. It is open to this House to do that with the other place. We may pass an Act of Parliament to remove a category of peers who have committed offences. The House of Lords itself can suspend peers Session by Session. It can repeat such a suspension if it believes that the offence is egregious enough.

This House also has the power to punish individuals outside the House. If people are in contempt of Parliament, we have the ultimate power to imprison them. I am not proposing that we should use that power extensively, but if lobbyists try to bribe or corrupt Members of Parliament, it is not unreasonable that Parliament herself should impose the punishment on those lobbyists. That would be a matter of us regulating ourselves, using the power given to us by the British people, rather than farming it out, through legislation, to the courts to decide whether parliamentary privilege has been breached.

[Damian Collins]

When the Culture, Media and Sport Committee took evidence during the phone-hacking inquiry, we found that many of Parliament’s powers to summon and even imprison people for misleading Parliament or for being in contempt of Parliament are historical. It is not certain what their legal status is and whether they have been superseded by subsequent legislation.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The power of the House to regulate its own affairs is one of the fundamental building blocks of the constitution. That power cannot be given up, except by this House voluntarily surrendering it, which it has not done. No court in this land can question a decision made by this House to regulate its own affairs. It is arguable that the European courts could, but we can take away their right to do so by a simple piece of legislation. If we are to legislate, therefore, it should be to reinforce our self-regulatory powers and to remove the possibility of challenge. That would clarify what we can do, and we should then go ahead and do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Collins]

Does the hon. Lady agree that we must proceed with some care in terms of how we put together a register of lobbyists because, in the most recent scandals, it has not been lobbyists seeking to entrap parliamentarians but journalists masquerading as lobbyists? Many people who consider themselves to be lobbyists as part of a voluntary registered scheme already would never engage in such practices.

[Pat Glass]

Absolutely, which is why I said at the beginning that lobbying has a long tradition in this place and should continue. But we need to deal with that lobbying, or as the hon. Member for North East Somerset said, that corruption, which is about gaining commercially.

Finally, I want to say that Labour did put a voluntary code of practice in place in 2009 but, like so many other voluntary codes of practice, it simply did not work. We need a statutory code of practice; something that has teeth and will bite. Our constituents need to see that, this time, we mean business. That will happen only if there is a statutory code of practice in place that works, so that those who breach it—MPs, peers and lobbyists—are dealt with severely. This will not in itself reinstate trust in politics, but it will be a good place to start.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Collins Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

In a sense, yes. After the Olympics, anybody who is interested in or involved with sport will want to ensure that those opportunities are available to as many people as possible. That said, the point of academies is that they enjoy freedom from central control and set their agenda as they wish. The issue is less about playing fields than about the provision of sports facilities. The key point is to build more 3G pitches, from which schools get 90 hours of use, as against four for an old grass pitch.

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

Does the Minister agree that the quality of coaching and facilities is just as important as the amount of space available? In Folkestone, the state-of-the-art redevelopment of Cheriton road sports ground was possible only because of the sale of a redundant piece of playing field land in the vicinity.

[Hugh Robertson]

Absolutely. The key statistic is that on average a grass pitch provides four hours’ use a week, but that rises to 90 hours on a new 3G pitch. This is not a new process: 246 school playing fields were sold off under the previous Administration.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Collins Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes I do, because the Secretary of State for Education has helpfully—unlike under the previous Administration, as the hon. Gentleman draws that comparison—made physical education one of only four core parts of the school curriculum, so everybody will at last be doing it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as a great supporter of sport, will support that.

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

Football remains a very popular competitive sport for people of all ages. Does the Minister share my concern about the loss in the High Court of HMRC’s case against the football creditors rule, and will he discuss with his ministerial colleagues whether the Government may legislate to get rid of that rule, for which even the chairman of the Football League has said he cannot find any moral justification?

[Hugh Robertson]

One of the interesting things that came out of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport’s report on football governance, in which my hon. Friend played a key part, was that almost nobody responsible for football at any level tried to defend the football creditors rule. I know that he has a private Member’s Bill to abolish it. I believe that HMRC is contemplating an appeal against the decision, and clearly we want to wait and see how that plays out, but I believe it is a rule that has had its day.