Members’ Paid Directorships and Consultancies
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh
As a matter of interest, will the Labour Front Bench commit to implementing the pay award from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in full?
Ms Eagle
My understanding of our position on the IPSA pay award is that the leader of our party has said that it should not go ahead as long as other public sector workers and workers in this country are experiencing a huge standard of living crisis. That is the situation as set out by my right hon. Friend.
It is time that we acknowledged the very different context in which we must all do our jobs, as it has changed. A YouGov poll in 2013 showed that 62% of people felt that MPs should focus on their parliamentary job full time, and over half favoured an outright ban on all second jobs. The proposals in the motion are just a start, but if enacted they would enable us to deal with the ongoing and corrosive issue of remunerated interests, and to begin to restore the health of our democracy and our constituents’ trust in the people they send to this place.
Let me turn to the actual terms of the motion, rather than the wildly inaccurate version that the Prime Minister sought unsuccessfully to dismiss earlier today. Our proposal states clearly that after
“the start of the next Parliament”
no Member of the House should be permitted to hold a directorship or a paid consultancy or, if our manuscript amendment had been accepted, be a paid trade union official. That is a commitment that we will honour in the Labour party by changing the parliamentary Labour party standing orders. All our existing Members of Parliament and candidates who are standing at the general election have been put on notice to expect that.
If the Government had accepted that rule when we first argued for it in 2013, the reputational damage inflicted this week would not have happened. The motion also states that we need
“a wider regulatory framework for…second jobs”
for MPs. The Prime Minister was wrong when he sought to characterise our proposals as an outright ban. We have set out some ways in which a regulatory framework might operate. That could include setting a cap on earnings from second jobs that is sufficiently high to allow, for example, Members to maintain professional qualifications. However, we will consult on that point with everyone who wishes to share their views. Our aim is to get a system that is fair and workable.
Our intention in the motion is simple. We need to be completely clear with the public that when they do us the honour of electing us to Parliament, they can expect our attention to be focused primarily on serving them.
Business of the House
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
I thank the hon. Lady very much for the part she has played on the Committee. It was clear that all members of the Committee were very engaged in its work. The recommendations are clear. As I said, I think they will be well received by the House. We will have the debate in January.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We had a very good debate on Russia and Ukraine last week, but events are moving fast. For example, evidence emerged over the weekend of discussions between President Hollande of France and Mr Putin. Various compromises may be in the air. This is an important issue. I am not asking for a debate immediately, but before Dissolution at the end of March will the Leader of the House have it in his mind, as issues relating to the Russian economy develop, to have another debate?
Mr Hague
One way or another, the House will need to be kept abreast of developments and to be able to comment on them, whether through statements from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or debates. My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to this international issue, which is fast moving and immensely important. I will certainly remind colleagues of the need to keep the House informed.
Devolution (Implications for England)
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman makes some important points and illustrates the complexity of our current arrangements; decisions about welfare payments in England of course have an immediate effect in Northern Ireland as well. Nobody is suggesting that Members of this House should be excluded from voting on matters that do affect their constituents; we are simply talking about determining whether there is English consent to proposals on matters that, in the words of McKay, have a “separate and distinct effect” for England and on England.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our overriding concern must be to preserve the United Kingdom and the sense of unity in the United Kingdom? Therefore, it should be possible to proceed with caution and by consensus to achieve that, and to persuade our Scottish friends and allies—our Scottish MPs—that they are valued Members of our Parliament but there has also to be a sense of justice for English voters.
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend puts it very well; there has to be that sense of justice, which is why this issue has to be resolved, but we do have to take great care with it. That is why we have presented a number of options for Members from all parts of the House to react to before all of us come to a final decision on how to proceed.
Business of the House
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
As the hon. Gentleman will know very well, it is Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions next Tuesday on 2 December. I spoke for a long time for the Foreign Office, but rather than trying to do so now, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to FCO questions. In previous years we have been reluctant to attend, given various difficulties to do with that particular conference, but I am sure Foreign Office Ministers will be able to answer his question clearly next week.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May I press my right hon. Friend a little more on the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young)? In common with many people, my main priority is the Union and friendship between our two nations. This depends on the absence of resentment on either side. What some of us are worried about is that as we approach the end of this Parliament, it will suddenly be announced that we cannot have a vote because the Deputy Prime Minister has thrown his toys out of the pram, or something like that, and there is no agreement in the quad, and the whole thing will just fade into the long grass. We want an absolute cast-iron, specific assurance from the Conservative side of the Government that we will have this vote.
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend need be in no doubt that the Prime Minister and I, and Conservatives in the coalition—and, indeed, across the country—will be very committed to having a vote in this House. The only caveat is this: my hon. Friend will be aware that, since we do not have an overall majority, we are not in total control of Government business or of the business of this House. We have, of course, seen some of our hon. Friends from the Liberal Democrats, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter), looking for these matters to be considered in detail. Let us make sure that we are able to do that.
Business of the House
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
Well, it is shortly to end—intentionally—but I assure Opposition Members that I am going to enjoy it a lot before it ends.
The hon. Lady joined in welcoming the new Chief Whip and made fun of what he was doing yesterday. Knowledge of who is in the toilets in whatever Lobby is an important piece of information for any Chief Whip. I take it as evidence that he was carrying out his duties very assiduously.
The hon. Lady also commented on the Government reshuffle. The Cabinet will meet tomorrow and eight women will be sitting around the Cabinet table, which is more than ever before. One third of the Conservative members of the Cabinet are now women. The Liberal Democrats intend to catch up in the coming decades. It is an even higher proportion than was achieved under the previous Government and we are proud of that.
The hon. Lady asked about holding an emergency debate on what Liberal Democrats have said today about the spare room subsidy. I do not think we will be able to have an emergency debate on every occasion they change their policy, but—[Laughter.] I am deeply fond of our coalition partners. I helped to negotiate the coalition and despite what I have just said I am enjoying working with my deputy, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).
No representations have been made within the Government about this. It is an important policy and the Government’s policy remains unchanged. There were 1.7 million households waiting for social housing in April 2013 and 1.5 million spare rooms across the working age social sector in Great Britain, so this is an important reform. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and hon. Members from all parties across the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
As the first Back Bencher to be called, may I warmly welcome the First Secretary of State to his post? I hope he does not view this as a gentle full stop to a most distinguished career and that he will be a reforming and great Leader of the House of Commons. Will he, in his remaining year in politics, push the reform agenda forward and, in particular, may we have a business of the House committee? That would transform Parliament and ensure that Parliament was in control of the business. Will he do it?
Easter Adjournment
Edward Leigh Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow a fellow member of the House of Commons rowing team. Every summer we try to raise some money for charity.
It is a great privilege to be a Member of the House of Commons. I was thinking that as I was standing in the Division Lobby and looking at the marvellous architecture and reflecting on all the good work we do here. Let us be honest, however, and recognise that some of the publicity we have had this week has not been the best.
I speak as the chairman of the group of MPs that liaises with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—I served on the group with the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), for a while—and I want to talk about how we can make Parliament more relevant to people’s needs. We should not be too negative about ourselves—I also serve on the Council of Europe and I look at how other parliamentarians around Europe operate, and our debates are still much more relevant and spontaneous. For instance, I only decided to speak today in the light of events this week. That spontaneity in Parliament is very important, but we have to accept that we have a problem with our image in the eyes of the public, on expenses and much else, including whether we are relevant to the lives of ordinary people.
We have seen some publicity today to the effect that it is rather sad that we have no mothers in the Cabinet. I share that sadness: after all, half the population of the country are women, and we all have mothers. Even those women who work, and work very hard, often define being a mother as the most important thing in their lives. I do not blame the Prime Minister, because there may be all sorts of reasons—perhaps there are no suitable people—but I do not want to get into all that. However, we need to make this place more attractive and diverse. We have not yet succeeded in attracting as many working mothers to this place as we should have done. It is our fault because of the nature of our work, our expenses regime, the salary and much else. Would a general practitioner and mother working in, say, Newcastle find becoming a Member of Parliament attractive? Her salary would probably be halved, but people are prepared to take enormous salary cuts to work in this place—it is a wonderful privilege and many of us would work here for nothing. But people have to live their lives and support their families. We now have an arcane expenses system that makes our job very unattractive to many working mothers in particular.
I have made that point to IPSA many times as chairman of the liaison group. I have said that we want a decent salary. IPSA is independent and it should set the salary properly. It is setting about the task fairly, and trying to average out the salary in real terms over the last 110 years since Members of Parliament have had a salary. It has come up with a reasonably fair figure, but we have told it again and again that if we are to attract people who are juggling different family responsibilities, it would be better to have a flat-rate transferable allowance, rather than the arcane and complicated expenses system. It would have to be voluntary at first, because many people are locked into the expenses system, but it would enable people who are juggling family responsibilities to do so in the knowledge that they could come here and perform their public service. If we carry on with the present system of complicated expenses, I fear that these scandals will go on and on, year after year, drip by drip, affecting the credibility of Parliament.
We can make Parliament more interesting and more effective in other ways. The power of Back Benchers to hold the Executive to account could be more pronounced. I am a great fan of recent moves to bring in open primaries in the selection of Members of Parliament. One of the best new Members of Parliament is my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). She was elected on an open primary and she is a marvellously independent MP. I would even be prepared to move eventually to the system that operates in other countries of open primaries not just for candidates standing for a parliamentary constituency for the first time, but for sitting Members. If we had that system, Members of Parliament would be much more accountable to their constituents and their views, and much less accountable to the views of the Whips Office. I have nothing against the Whips Office—I see a Whip on the Front Bench and she is a delightful lady colleague for whom I have great respect—but Parliament would be a better place if Members felt that their careers depended more on their constituents than the vagaries of promotion and the opinion of the Whips Office. Having an open primary system would be a very interesting development.
I cannot speak for the Labour party—perhaps it is making more progress—but we have started this process in the Conservative party. We undoubtedly have a problem with our local parties, which is an important constitutional point. Local Conservative parties—I suspect it is the same for the Labour party—are getting smaller and smaller. Local parties have probably always been fairly small in the Liberal Democrats. The problem is getting worse. Local parties are getting so small now that they could be in danger of takeovers from extreme minority interests, sects or odd bods. In that sense, they are becoming less representative of people who do not take a lot of interest in politics. That is not entirely the fault of political parties. All such groups are having difficulties and getting smaller, so we have to think of creative ways of engaging with the public. Many MPs use social media creatively, but the concept of widening our accountability beyond our local parties to the wider public through a primary system is interesting.
We need to keep working to increase the power of Select Committees and Back Benchers generally vis-à-vis the Executive. Select Committees have gone from strength to strength. I have served on many Select Committees in my time, starting with the Defence Committee and then moving on to the then Agriculture Committee, the Social Security Committee and chairing the Public Accounts Committee. Ultimately, however important Committees are in gaining publicity and publishing interesting reports, they are only scrutiny committees. In no way do they have anything like the authority and power of congressional committees. We have constantly to develop ways of increasing the authority of Select Committees.
We have to develop an alternative career structure for Members of Parliament. There are 650 MPs and there can only be 50 or 60 Ministers. There are too many Ministers. The number of Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries seems to increase relentlessly, sucking more and more people from the majority party into the Executive. That is a wholly unhealthy way of conducting a free Parliament. We need to build the Select Committee system up to make it more powerful and attractive. We need powers and authority over appointments and even, in certain circumstances, policy. For example, the Defence Committee could have power over procurement, as the armed forces committee does in the United States. All these ideas should be investigated continuously to make Back Benchers more relevant and free, and with more control over the Executive.
The primary system opens up the relevance of MPs to their own people. This is not an appropriate moment to talk about the issues I sometimes mention, but everybody knows that I may have my own views on gay marriage, overseas development and wind farms being put in my constituency through a very generous subsidy system. I may also have my own views on planning in villages and HS2. I do not need to weary the House by detailing them all—Members probably suspect where those views are coming from—but I hope and I suspect that, whether on planning, wind farms or overseas aid, I represent a certain strain of opinion in a conservative rural constituency in the east midlands. I hope that my views are not completely out of kilter with many of the people who live in my constituency. Indeed, I believe it is my job to speak up for middle England. There is nothing wrong with that. Plenty of people speak up for other parts of England, Scotland and Wales and for other viewpoints. I sometimes think that the conservative voice of middle England is not adequately spoken up for.
Following on from the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), many people in the east midlands and northern England—my constituency is a northern seat—feel that there is a metropolitan bias in our whole system, whether in the BBC, the Cabinet or at the top of political parties. I have been an MP through many Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition and they are all the same: they tend to promote their friends. My great good friend and the first leader I worked for, Margaret Thatcher, was just as bad as the rest, so this is not a coded message attacking the current Prime Minister or anybody else. However, there is the view in northern England that there is too much emphasis in our public life on the liberal metropolitan elite, and that there is not enough hard-hitting, robust debate. That debate does not necessarily have to come from the right; it can come from the left too.
This is where I will finish, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I think I have made my point. I hope the reforms I have talked about result in a more varied, robust and independent Parliament.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
It is a pleasure to respond to the pre-recess Adjournment debate. As is customary, I will do so at some length to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who opened the debate. Hon. Members who can see the Dispatch Box will notice that I have a significant number of notes relating to the points he raised—I will take them in no particular order—but I hope to leave time to respond to the points made by other hon. Members as well.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Maldives and the double taxation and bilateral investment treaties. I will ensure that his comments are passed on to the Treasury, which is the lead Department on this issue. It is clearly important that action is taken to strengthen the Maldives economy. We hope that President Yameen will now work towards economic reform in the Maldives, in addition to considering the treaties.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the Assisted Dying Bill. The Government believe that any change in the law in this emotive area is an issue of individual conscience and a matter for Parliament to decide, rather than one for Government policy. The Government will take a collective view on the Bill in order to respond to the debate on Second Reading, a date for which has yet to be confirmed.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of dog breeding—puppy farming—about which there is a significant petition. Legislation is already in place to control the breeding and selling of dogs. Local authorities have powers to grant licences for dog-breeding establishments, and have powers of refusal based on the grounds of welfare. Powers are also available to local authorities to investigate and enter premises in relation to allegations of poor welfare or cruelty.
My hon. Friend referred to the all-party group on hepatology. The Department of Health is concerned by the increasing burden of liver disease—he said it was the fifth biggest killer—and the resulting premature mortality, much of which is preventable. Together with NHS England and Public Health England, the Department of Health will support local authorities and clinical commissioning groups in their responsibility to deliver improved outcomes in relation to liver disease.
My hon. Friend mentioned the controversial issue of gender selection abortion. As I am sure he and other hon. Members are aware, abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal. The Abortion Act 1967 states that two practitioners must be of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the woman has grounds for an abortion according to the criteria set out in the Act. The chief medical officer has written twice to all doctors involved with abortion provision to remind them of the need to ensure that they work within the law at all times.
My hon. Friend also referred to melanoma. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has recommended Yervoy as an option for treating advanced melanoma in people who have previously received therapy. NHS commissioners are required to fund Yervoy if there is an indication that clinicians want to use it. NICE is currently developing guidance on the drug’s use in previously untreated, unresectable stage 3 or 4 malignant melanoma.
I hope I have addressed all the medical issues to which my hon. Friend referred, and I will now talk about Quilliam. In a previous guise, when I was my party’s home affairs spokesman, I had knowledge of that organisation. He talked about the need to ensure that we address the promotion of extremism on the internet. Members will be aware that terrorist groups make extensive use of the internet to spread their propaganda, and we have seen how that can contribute to individuals becoming radicalised. A number of those convicted under the terrorism Acts were exposed to radicalising content that they found online, including Inspire magazine, sermons and bomb-making instructions. A number of people who have been involved in terrorist activity have admitted to accessing radicalising content online. Keeping up with the scale and pace of terrorist and extremist content online remains a challenge, so it is important that we have a balanced approach, including working with industry, law enforcement and the public. The police counter-terrorism internet referral unit is removing more illegal terrorist content than previously. Since 2010 we have taken down more than 29,000 pieces of illegal terrorist material.
My hon. Friend referred to the work of Seetec recruitment in Southend, and he talked about South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust. He previously talked about the trust’s services in the pre-recess Adjournment debate in December 2013. He had an opportunity to discuss his concerns in Westminster Hall on 5 March this year, and I hope he secured suitable responses. It is crucial that all NHS care providers deliver care to the highest standard possible. As a local MP, he is well placed to help ensure that the trust is held to that high standard. I hope he will continue to engage with the trust, local GP commissioners and national regulators to that end, and I am sure he will.
My hon. Friend raised the further health issue of thalidomide victims. He will know that on 20 December 2012 the Department of Health announced a new 10-year grant for the Thalidomide Trust. The grant will be paid on an annual basis, uprated in line with inflation, which means that over the 10-year period it will be worth some £80 million. The Department of Health currently has no plans to make representations to the German Government on compensation from Grünenthal to the UK victims of thalidomide, but the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is responsible for care services, hopes to meet representatives from the Thalidomide Trust to discuss the matter further.
My hon. Friend praised Westcliff high school for girls in his constituency, which has the second-best GCSE results in the country. I congratulate the school. In 2013, 100% of pupils achieved five or more A to C grades. The school cannot do any better, but it now has the challenge of maintaining that performance hereafter.
My hon. Friend mentioned tongue-tied breastfeeding—it is very difficult to say “tongue-tied.” I was not aware of the issue, and I do not know how many other Members were aware of it, but he is right to raise its profile, particularly as he has found that even medical practitioners are not necessarily aware of the condition. I hope there will now be greater recognition. He will be pleased to know that NICE has issued full guidance to the NHS on division of tongue-tie for breastfeeding. He asked for a meeting with Health Ministers, and although I cannot commit the diaries of other Ministers, I am sure he will pursue the matter vigorously. I am sure that the Department of Health will look carefully at the different health-related points that he has raised during this debate in case there are things that it wants to respond to him on directly.
That might include the issue of FH. I will leave it at that, rather than spelling out precisely what it stands for. My hon. Friend may know that the NICE clinical guidelines recommend that health care professionals should use cascade testing to identify people with FH. Those guidelines represent best practice as they are based on the available evidence and developed through wide consultation. In view of their complexity and the different states of readiness for implementation in the NHS, clinical guidelines are not subject to the same statutory funding requirement as NICE’s technology appraisals.
My hon. Friend clearly has some strong views about the effectiveness of the Essex probation trust. I understand that he has corresponded with Ministers at the Ministry of Justice about rehabilitation services in Essex. I am sure he welcomes the changes that the Government are making to ensure that people who were not receiving support and assistance will do so. He has put his concerns on the record. I am sure that in any process of assessing individual bids, the competence of the organisations that submit the bids will be taken into account.
My hon. Friend spoke about Bahrain. The Government remain supportive of the reforms that are under way in Bahrain. We commend the steps that have been taken by the Bahraini Government to implement the recommendations of the Bahrain independent commission of inquiry. Progress has been made in a number of areas, but there is more to be done. We encourage the Bahraini Government to ensure that the remaining recommendations are implemented soon.
My hon. Friend talked about the importance of ensuring that drug treatment is tailored to the individual. I certainly support that. It must be the most effective way to help someone overcome their addiction and to reduce the health harms that are associated with their illicit opiate use. It is for NICE to decide when there is sufficient evidence to update its guidance and appraisals. It might be considering that issue at the moment.
My hon. Friend spoke about the wine and spirits industry and wine duty. I am sure that he supports the steps taken in the Budget, such as the reduction in beer duty and, in relation to the spirits industry, the freezing of the duty on Scotch whisky. We all know that pubs are an important community asset where people socialise and consume alcohol responsibly. Supporting pubs through the reduction in beer duty was therefore a welcome measure. Ending the wine duty escalator will support pubs that have diversified away from beer. It also ensures that beer and wine duties remain broadly similar, as is required under EU law.
The last thing that my hon. Friend raised was the issue of CCTV spy cars, which councils use in some circumstances to raise money by issuing parking fines. The feeling among drivers is that they suddenly receive a fine some weeks later, when they are not aware that they have committed an offence. Clearly, we do not propose to do anything to prevent a parking warden or police officer from issuing a penalty in cases of genuinely dangerous parking. We want to ensure that, particularly around schools, parking restrictions are enforced. Parents often request the presence of a CCTV car to monitor other parents who do not observe the rules and, as a result, might endanger the safety of children. I hope that I have dealt with all my hon. Friend’s points.
I now move on to my neighbour, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh).
Sir Edward Leigh
May I congratulate the Deputy Leader of the House? In all my time here, that is the fullest reply I have ever heard to any Member’s speech. It was fantastic, and we now want him to give as full a reply to all the other speeches.
Tom Brake
I rather worried that the final sentence of my hon. Friend’s intervention would be a requirement to respond in suitable detail to all the other speeches. I do not want to give away any secrets, but there are advantages to Members letting me know in advance what will be in their speech, because it perhaps ensures a slightly greater degree of detail in the response. Fortunately for me, however, my neighbour the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden raised an issue with which I am extremely familiar—the future of St Helier hospital, which is in my constituency—so I required no briefing notes from officials on it. I have been living, eating and breathing it for the past 25 years or so, and my wife had my children there.
As the hon. Lady will be aware, £219 million was allocated to St Helier under the previous Government, which I welcomed, and that was confirmed under the current Government, which I also fully supported. As she said, a review called Better Services Better Value was put forward. Had the Surrey GPs not said that they did not support it, it would potentially have led to the closure of the A and E and maternity services at St Helier and Epsom, which I opposed. She referred to the 13,000 signatures on her petition, and I think mine currently has 19,000, so we are both raising awareness of the issue. She commended the supporters of the campaign in Merton, as I do, and a wide range of organisations in Sutton, such as the league of friends, that are campaigning on the issue.
I must say, however, that I do not think it is entirely helpful to the campaign to try to make it partisan in the way that I am afraid some of the hon. Lady’s fellow party members have. They have claimed that clause 119 of the Care Bill will allow the Secretary of State for Health to close any hospital anywhere in the country at any time if he decides on a whim to do so. That is clearly not what the clause is about. It is about scenarios such as Mid Staffordshire, where the way in which the hospital was run meant that more patients were dying than should have been the case. In a very limited number of circumstances—it has been used only twice—there is a need to take urgent action, and that is what the clause is about. It is not about a well run hospital such as St Helier, which is in category 6, the category for the safest hospitals in the country. I wish that that argument were not being deployed, because it does not add to the campaign, which is strong enough as it is. The hon. Lady and I, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who is also campaigning hard on the issue, will continue to run the campaign.
The hon. Lady also referred to surgery schemes that have stalled. I am sure that her local clinical commissioning group will have noted her concerns, and I hope that it will respond promptly, and preferably positively. I will also draw the matter to the attention of the relevant Health Minister, to ensure that the Department of Health takes whatever action it can.
The hon. Lady referred to GPs charging for letters. I am not aware of any other organisations that I contact that charge for providing a letter to assist a Member of Parliament in pursuing casework—I do not know whether any other Members know of any. It is regrettable that some GPs choose to do that. I should point out, however, that although GPs have a statutory duty to provide certain things for free, they may charge fees in some circumstances. I will ensure that her concerns are raised with the Department of Health and that it responds to her directly.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) said that the pre-recess Adjournment debates are one of the highlights of the year, and I agree with him. He referred to the butterfly supping on the nectar of a flower alongside the A40. I hate to spoil the picture that he built up for us, but I suspect that by now the butterfly has been demolished by a juggernaut driving along the A40. I heard on Radio 4 that this has been a slightly better year so far for butterflies, and I also felt rather guilty about removing a substantial amount of ivy from a tree when I learnt from the same programme that ivy is exactly what butterflies need in the winter and to provide nectar in the autumn when few flowers are available.
My hon. Friend also talked about vultures and I think we all wondered for a moment what he was about to say. He then mentioned the European Union and I thought it would be one of those stories in which the EU is to blame for everything. In this case, it would seem that the EU is to be blamed for the deaths of European vultures. I will ensure that, if appropriate, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs responds on the issue of bearded vultures as I know that my right hon. Friend identifies with those birds and wants to see their numbers grow—
Points of Order
Edward Leigh Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
The short answer is that I have had no indication from any Minister of an intention to make a statement on this matter. Whether intentions will change on the back of the hon. Gentleman’s observations, I leave time and speculation by colleagues to reveal. We will leave it there for today, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I hope you will not mind me sucking up to you for a bit. In my view, you are one of the best Speakers that we have had in recent years, because you have tried to make this place more topical. We have had an interesting statement and questions on Ukraine, but such issues are complex, and it is hard to express difficult economic and historical arguments in a 30-second question. As we have a House of Commons in which we are not overburdened with work at the moment, will you use your good offices with those who decide things—I do not know how much power you have—to get a full day’s debate on Ukraine, which after all is an extraordinarily important issue that we need to discuss urgently?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic good humour in putting it. As he knows, that is not a matter for the Chair. The Government Chief Whip is present, but at least as importantly the Leader of the House is also present.
As colleagues know and as people who attend our proceedings appreciate, I am the servant of the House. I love listening to my colleagues on matters of local, national and global importance. My appetite for listening to them is pretty much unlimited. I would love there to be a full day’s debate and I would love to be in the Chair to hear the bulk of it, but I am dependent on a superior power in these matters, namely the Leader of the House. The hon. Gentleman, however, has made his point, and the Leader of the House cannot fail to have heard his point and my response. As for the response of the Leader of the House, it has to be said that it should probably be best described by Hansard as impassive.
Business of the House
Edward Leigh Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
It is important to have clear and meaningful indicators of school performance. If I may, I will ask a Minister at the Department to respond to the point the hon. Gentleman rightly raises, rather than attempt to do so myself.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
With regard to private Members’ Bills and the forthcoming return of the European Union (Referendum) Bill, will the Leader of the House remind the House that the Bill is such a beautiful yet fragile flower that seeking to improve it by amending it will be about as useful to its life as throwing a gallon of poison over it?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This important Bill is drafted in a straightforward way. Even with the best will in the world—he is very knowledgeable about the procedures of the House—seeking to improve private Members’ Bills in a way that is no more than tinkering risks prejudicing them. Those who, like me, share the view that the Bill should pass—it will give people the say that they should have, and at the right time, in the future of this country’s relationship with Europe—should accept that and get on with it.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Temporary Chair (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should say that the amendments are narrowly drafted. I know that hon. Members, when they take part, will not just have a general debate on part 3. That is quite important.
Mr Djanogly
I declare any interests I have in the debate arising from my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Essentially, the question on amendment 103 is whether we tweak the existing system for an automatic annual union membership auditing and inspection regime, or, as Labour wants, we tweak the system in much the same way as the Government propose but so that it comes into play only if a complaint is made under the existing rules. I support the part 3 and clause 36 proposals to aid the verification of union membership. The question is how far the measures should go. On listening to Opposition Members on Second Reading, one might have thought that part 3 constituted a massive attack on union rights, or at least a vehicle for what the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), the shadow Leader of the House, has called “cheap” and “partisan” attacks.
The Bill is nothing of the kind, as is immediately apparent when one looks through the Opposition amendments. Their proposals are mainly low-key and technical, and not political. Admittedly, taken in the round, the Labour amendments could be seen as obstructive amendments that seek either to stymie the role of the certification officer or at least to keep him in his existing box, which is why they should be opposed.
Ian Lavery
The hon. Gentleman mentions union intimidation. Does he want to provide some examples of his experience of union intimidation?
The Temporary Chair (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. I do not think we need to get into these wider areas. I repeat that this is a narrow amendment and that the clause itself is very narrow.
Mr Djanogly
Unison and Unite now account for approximately 40% of total union membership. As such, it follows that the larger unions are becoming increasingly powerful politically and economically, and with power comes responsibility and the duty to be accountable. We can make a comparison with companies and the difference between how private and public companies are regulated. It is therefore right that union obligations to administrate themselves correctly, such as membership records, are subject to a suitable level of oversight and scrutiny, and the clause provides for that. I note that the Labour party seems to accept the number of 10,000 as appropriate for the higher level of regulation to apply.
Mr Djanogly
Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. If we are to have the provision to audit members, we should know what “member” means. This is a fundamental omission, as was shown with the miners compensation scheme.
In that situation, certain unions created a new class of “associate membership”, with no rights other than the right for the claimants to be referred to the union-picked no win, no fee lawyers, from whom the unions then took a kickback commission. The scam was uncovered and the lawyers were heavily penalised by their regulators. However, not—
The Temporary Chair (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman some leeway, but if he looks—as I know he has: he is a very skilful Member—he will see that this is a narrowly drafted clause. Will he please now restrict himself to the amendments and the duty to provide membership audit certificates, and not give a long history of the trade union movement?
Mr Djanogly
Thank you for that clarification, Sir Edward.
The point of amendment 103 is to ask the purpose of the clause, and that is right. If the purpose is to deal with auditing members, perhaps we should be talking about what constitutes a member and what is to be audited. Would it include the associated membership that we saw in the miners compensation scheme, for instance? Should the audit include a description of their rights as members? Alternatively, do we want to know accurately the number of members, so that this can be tied to union political contributions? If so, the Bill might not be as effective as some people think. That is because trade unions have not necessarily been affiliating the same number of members as have been contributing to the political fund. They may affiliate phantom members in order to get more union votes on Labour party matters. I am unsure what effect auditing membership numbers would have in that situation, other than to verify how bizarre Labour’s relationship with the unions can be. Again, however, a sense of direction for future reform from the Government would be helpful.
I support this Bill, because I can see nothing to object to in principle—it basically just repeats and fortifies what has been around since the 1980s. I hope that hon. Members do not take what I have said as anti-union, because I am not anti-union. However, I strongly believe that union law is way behind the times and desperately in need of reform. Can anyone really argue that legislation and procedural regulations passed in the mid 1980s are still adequate now? Although I disagree with Labour’s amendment 103, I appreciate its wider implication of showing up the lack of Government purpose and direction behind these provisions. Given the time the coalition Government have had to formulate policy on these key issues, which have a significant impact on the people of this country, we could and should be doing much better. This is a missed opportunity to reform industrial relations law.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. The hon. Lady is introducing her speech. I give a certain latitude, but I know that, as a skilful Member, she will soon get on to audit certification.
Yasmin Qureshi
I will move on swiftly, Sir Edward.
Let me return to the trade union aspect. The provisions in this Bill have been designed just to cause more bureaucratic headaches for trade unions. All they mean is that trade unions will have to spend more of their members’ money—let us remember that these are the 7.2 million ordinary working people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) pointed out, who are members of trade unions and pay their subs. The Bill would mean that trade unions had to spend more money on trying to comply with the system. Surely that cannot be right. Trying to put that provision in legislation dealing with lobbying as a whole is completely wrong. It is unfair. What is the mischief that the Government are trying to deal with? The mischief is big money and corporate enterprises, yet this Bill does nothing to address such lobbying. All it does is impose a financial burden on unions that rely solely on subs from their members.
The Government are often accused of being out of touch and only looking after the rich and powerful. Surely it is about time they sent out the message that actually they do care about the ordinary person and are perturbed that their living standards and wages are going down. The Prime Minister was not willing to acknowledge those issues at Prime Minister’s questions. The issue of living conditions was put to him time and again, and he was asked about the living wage, yet he refused to answer or to acknowledge the fact that people’s living standards have gone down. We are talking about the same people who have to pay their trade union subs out of their own pay packets. And before anyone says, “Why are they giving the trade unions their hard-earned money?”, I will tell them the reason. In the workplace, the only person a worker can rely on if things get hard is their trade union representative.
John Cryer
Of course I agree, but there has always been a legal framework for taking industrial action. The idea that anyone ever takes industrial action—not only strike action, but action short of strikes—lightly is a myth. That just does not happen in the real world.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has been very well behaved so far and has stayed entirely in order, but he has been led astray by the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). He should now return to the clause.
John Cryer
I am told that the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) regularly leads people astray—[Interruption.] I do not mean that; I am joking.
As has been said repeatedly, we were first led to believe that this measure would be a lobbying Bill, but since then parts 2 and 3 have been added. We had been promised a lobbying Bill for three and a half years, but all sorts of things have been bolted on to that. Why was there no consultation paper on not only part 2, which we dealt with yesterday, but part 3 and provisions such as clause 36? Why could not the Government have issued a consultation paper so that people could have contributed to the process, rather than ramming the Bill through in a few days, despite introducing it just before the recess? These measures should have been thought through carefully and a consultation process to which people could contribute should have been held, but that simply did not happen.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. Members cannot just make something up and say that it should be in the clause; they must relate the debate to what is in the clause already. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who has been here quite long enough, should learn how to behave properly.
Mr Doran
I hope that I took it in good part, Sir Edward.
The decision on the legislation that was to proceed was taken under the process I have mentioned, and everything agreed between the CBI and the TUC was implemented. At its heart was the need to take the heat out of industrial action. We looked at a whole range of areas. One key area was the problem of recognition disputes, when unions had built up a membership in a company and wanted recognition. Many such disputes ended up in the courts and in difficult strikes. We wanted to take the heat out of all areas of conflict. All of that was implemented in the Employment Relations Act 1999. The evidence was a dramatic reduction in the number of strikes—my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South mentioned the number, but I cannot remember—and that has been maintained. I do not think that there is any question about that.
During the Conservative years, and the previous Labour years, to be honest, the level of strikes was far too high. That legislation and that process brought that to an end, and at the time both sides were happy. Even before that legislation was implemented to set in place a process for dealing with recognition disputes, and the effort was to take them out of the courts and minimise conflict, over 1,000 new recognition agreements were signed by both sides.
One of the major problems with this Government is that they have a one-sided approach that demonises trade unions and in every way possible places barriers in the way of the trade union movement. There is no realisation of what happens on the ground. Most trade unions are there not to strike or disrupt the employer, but to protect their members. As part of the process I mentioned, we did a lot of balloting and held focus groups to find out why members signed up to unions. The important thing for most of them was the insurance policy that they got—the fact that the union would support them if there was an argument with their employer, and in particular would pay for the lawyers in an unfair dismissal case, for example. That is what members bought into.
One of my concerns about the Government’s approach is that the harder it becomes for trade unions to operate properly, as trade unions should be allowed to operate in a democratic system, the more members will become tired of the system and have no proper recourse for their grievances. I do not often agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on these issues—
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. The hon. Gentleman should leave the subject of Sellafield and come back to clause 36, please. The discussion is getting very wide.
Mr Doran
Two hundred trade unionists turned up to lobby us at the meeting we attended. The point I was trying to make, Mr Leigh, was about the relationship between a good union and a good employer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) raised union problems. There are two ways of looking at the matter. Either the Government do not know what the problems are, in which case they are negligent, or they know the problems and want them to be exploited. There are major difficulties in the path of any trade union that wants to keep proper records.
The first difficulty is the churn rate. My hon. Friend said that it was 10% or 15%, but the churn rate for the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, for example, is 25% or sometimes 30%. Every year it has to replace 25% of its membership. A lot of members go on to other jobs. They pay their union dues by direct debit and think they do not need to bother to tell the union that they have changed workplace, because they are still working in the same business and paying their union dues. That is difficult for unions. There are lots of practical issues such as that.
The biggest employer in my area is the North sea oil and gas industry, which employs about 30,000 workers offshore and 150,000 onshore. All have different status in the workplace. Many union members are self-employed and many work from company to company. At the moment, there is a massive skill shortage in the North sea. Wages are being ramped up—not a problem in the rest of the country, I know—because people are being enticed to other companies, but still working in the same business, travelling on the same unsafe helicopters and paying their union dues as usual through their bank accounts. Those are all massive problems.
Ian Lavery
It would be helpful if the Minister explained who has been consulted in this process—a lot of people would be interested to hear that. My view is that it would not take long to explain how many people have been consulted, because it is only one or two. The trade unions individually and the TUC collectively have not been consulted.
Getting back to the Bill—
The Temporary Chair (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. The hon. Gentleman should already be on the Bill.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Temporary Chair (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. The Minister is not giving way at this point. Hon. Members must let him continue.
Tom Brake
I will give way shortly.
It might help the Committee if I set out in a little detail why the amendments in this group would not work effectively, along with some of the points we will need to address before Report. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross for his amendments, which in substance try to achieve what the Government want to do. However, in practice, there are some deficiencies in their wording, which means that we cannot simply adopt them now.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 101, page 13, line 31, at end insert—
‘( ) In section 94(1) of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000, after subsection (1) insert—
(1A) During a regulated period no controlled expenditure is to be incurred by any third party that is in receipt of public funds in the 12 month period prior to the start of the regulated period.”.
( ) In section 94(2) after “schedule 10” in line 3, insert “or by (1A) above.’.
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 66, page 13, leave out lines 32 to 35.
Amendment 165, page 14, line 2, at end insert—
‘(3) Subsections (1) and (2) may not come into force until such time as the Electoral Commission has placed before Parliament a report on the impact of subsections (1) and (2) on relative controlled expenditure by political parties and non-parties in regulated periods.’.
Clause stand part.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
That is a gloriously roundabout way of examining this issue and it gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to a wonderful nanny who campaigns for me and who is now hard at work looking after my four children, which is a great thing for her to be doing. She was a volunteer when I campaigned in Glenrothes and therefore would in no sense have been caught by this clause. Although any payment that is made to her does come from me, it is not money that I receive from the public.
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. We will go back to the amendment, thank you.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Sir Edward.
In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), British Telecom and Arriva are not going to establish themselves as third parties in a general election. What is the idea—that British Telecom is suddenly going to send us messages saying “Vote Labour” or “Vote for a particular candidate”? That is an absurd suggestion. Is Heathrow airport going to focus on a particular candidate?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
If my hon. Friend had been listening to all of the debate outside the House, which I am sure she has been, she will have seen that many bodies contributing to it are publicly funded. They receive money from the state that they are now spending on lobbying the state. It is therefore not the greatest leap to assume that there are bodies in receipt of money from the state that might be interested in elections. Why? Because they are the ones complaining that the Bill is so unfair on them. If they are complaining that the Bill is so unfair on them, it must be because they intend to spend some of that money on elections. My hon. Friend must therefore see that the case is made by the people she is oddly supporting. They have given a warning about what they intend to do. Having been warned, it is surely sensible to stop this happening and to say that it is wrong for taxpayers’ money to be used to fund third parties’ election campaigns.
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is starting to go around in circles, albeit in an elegant way, so he might now bring his remarks to a close.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
If I had not taken so many interventions I would have finished. The key point is immeasurably simple. There is a duty of care with taxpayers’ money. There is a risk of impropriety if it is spent by third parties on elections. That impropriety is a greater temptation to a sitting Government who control the purse strings than it is to the Opposition who do not. It is something that ought not to be allowed. We do not fund our political parties for their campaigning. We ought not to fund third parties. We ought to make it illegal.
Mr Allen
I am sure the Chair will rule me out of order if I return to previous debates, but suffice it to say that, under the current definition in the Bill, if an organisation is seen to enhance the standing of any candidate, they will be caught by this, and that is such a—
The Temporary Chair (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. Many Members want to contribute to this debate, and I know that the very experienced Member speaking will want to get back to the point very quickly.
Mr Allen
Thank you, Sir Edward, but I had seen the Government Whip running round trying to roust up a couple of speeches from the Conservative Back Benches so I assumed we had a little time. I will try to be more concise, however.
The proposal is to tighten the current spending limits, but they have served us well. As far as we could ascertain, they have elicited not a single case or complaint. We heard the same response time and again: “We have already got limits. Why on earth do we need to change them?” Again, there seems to be no clear rationale for doing that. But the impact of lowering the limits is, obviously, to reduce the amount of money that charities, voluntary sector organisations and others can spend in pursuit of their legitimate objectives. If people go crazy and start to spend them on illegitimate objectives, they will get caught by existing legislation, let alone future legislation.
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. For the guidance of the Committee, I would like to get the Minister in by 6.45, so if hon. Members could try and speak for not much more than five or six minutes, that would be a great help.
Charlie Elphicke
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who speaks to the Committee with great experience, but on this occasion I cannot agree with him. I support my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and the wording of his amendment:
“During a regulated period no controlled expenditure is to be incurred by any third party that is in receipt of public funds”.
There has for some time been a problem with using public money to get involved in our political system, and that has caused me considerable concern. The Public Administration Committee looks at charities, what they do and how they act and operate. The findings of some of our investigations are a matter of grave concern. There has been a tremendous change over the past 15 to 20 years in the third sector and how it operates, which makes my hon. Friend’s amendment relevant, but also means that clause 27 and the Bill in general should be brought to this Bill Committee.
In the past 15 years the state funding of charities in Britain has increased significantly, while restrictions on political lobbying by charities have been substantially relaxed. Some 27,000 charities are now dependent on the Government for more than 75% of their income and the voluntary sector receives more money from the state than it does in voluntary donations. That fact is pointed out by the Institute of Economic Affairs in its report entitled “Sock Puppets”. It is important for us to be aware of that.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. I know that Mr Elphicke will be thinking carefully of other people, so he might like to bring his remarks to a conclusion quite soon.
Charlie Elphicke
Thank you, Sir Edward. I will not detain the Committee for too much longer. I wish to make a few more brief points.
Charlie Elphicke
My particular concern about the state funding of charities and outsourcing of services is that they should not be in a position to use that money to lobby for more Government funds. The third sector’s increasing reliance on Government largesse has provoked lots of discussion and caused considerable concern. Critics have accused Governments of using statutory funding to silence belligerent charities or to politicise good causes.
“Guido Fawkes” says:
“A charity that relies in the main part on taxes is no more a charity than”
a lady of the night
“is your girlfriend.”
On the serious issue of lobbying for more money, we should be cautious and ensure that it is not misspent and that the regulation of lobbying should catch up with the fact that the third sector has changed dramatically in recent years and, indeed, that the historic restrictions on political campaigning and political involvement by charities, on which the Charity Commission used to be very firm, have been relaxed.