Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(11 years, 3 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(11 years, 3 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.
Summer Adjournment
Edward Leigh Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
Before the House adjourns for the summer recess, I should like briefly to raise a number of points.
I feel that I was duped over the war with Iraq, and I will certainly not be duped again with regard to Syria. I am totally against any involvement in that country, although I praise and highlight the work of organisations such as the United Nations, the Red Cross and Christian Aid. We want to hear much less from Mr Blair and Mr Clinton in terms of any advice that they might be giving. Unless they are prepared to have some of their children sent home in body bags, they should remain silent.
On Iran, I have long been in favour of peaceful regime change.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On Syria, will my hon. Friend make the very important point that the community that will suffer most in any armed intervention by the west is one that is protected by the Assad regime—namely, the Christians? It is the last major Christian community left in the middle east outside Egypt.
Mr Amess
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. However, I hope that the House will understand if I do not give way any more because I have promised the Deputy Speaker that I will be very quick and set a good example.
The new President of Iran, Mr Rouhani, seems to have been given a wonderful welcome, including in the press. Now that he has the office of President, I caution the House to judge him by his deeds, because his track record is not particularly wonderful.
The Maldives were a British protectorate and for 30 years a dictator ran the country. On 7 September, there are new elections. Given that we have a real interest in the Maldives, it is very important that those elections are held properly and fairly so that this nascent democracy is given all possible support.
I was delighted that one of my colleagues was introducing a Bill to amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but rather perplexed when the Bill was not presented. It is absolutely ludicrous that people can make freedom of information requests but we are not allowed know their names and addresses. The House must change that as a matter of urgency. It is completely gutless when people are not prepared to be named and reveal their identities.
I served on the Health Committee for 10 years, and during that time we initiated a debate on obesity. Given all the current talk about obesity, it is as if it has only just been invented. I urge the House to go to the House of Commons Library and look at the report that the Health Committee produced in 2003. If those recommendations had been followed, we would not be in the situation we are in now.
The Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, which I was privileged to pilot through the House, reduced the number of people in fuel poverty from 3.5 million in 2010 to 3.2 million in 2011, but there are still far too many. Although it is very warm at the moment, I hope that we will not take our eye off the ball in reducing the deprivation that some of our senior citizens feel when it comes to being warm in their homes.
Space exploration is something that interests us all. I am sure that all hon. Members can think of one or two people they would like to send up in a rocket, hopefully not to return. I would not think for a moment that the UK Space Agency would rival its counterpart in America, although I am very glad that a British astronaut has now joined the programme. Given that we are spending a huge amount of money on the High Speed 2 rail project, I hope, in the context of profitability, that we will look carefully at space exploration in future.
Mr Ray Woodcock is a local resident who raises a lot of money for charity by bungee jumping. On 18 August, he will be beating the Guinness world record for bungee jumping over water at a Welsh quarry, jumping a total of 400 ft. I know that all hon. Members will wish him well.
I recently had a meeting in my office with representatives of Coloplast, which was the first company in the world to develop the ostomy bag. They recently celebrated bowel independence day, which encourages GPs to offer newer technologies more regularly. I hope that the relevant Health Minister will look into this matter and support the company’s endeavours. On the same day, I met representatives of the Multiple Sclerosis Society, who informed me of the positive results that the MS risk sharing scheme has shown since its introduction in 2002. I hope that the scheme will be strengthened further in future and that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will look into the matter.
I was appalled by this week’s announcements about a number of hospitals. As I know Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals Trust extremely well, I feel very strongly that Monitor has played a significant role in what has happened in this tragedy. The people who run Monitor must be held to account by this House.
Monorails do not seem to be particularly popular in this country, but they do offer another way of getting round our busy cities. I am certainly going to encourage the good residents of Southend to have a monorail, and I hope that other hon. Members will be interested in this matter.
Essex bowling club is currently celebrating its 106th year. It is a wonderful club that has had a few trials and tribulations, particularly with the Inland Revenue. I am sending a message to the Deputy Leader of the House saying that I expect someone from the Treasury, as a matter of urgency, to extend the courtesy of meeting my constituents from Essex bowling club and helping them with their tax affairs.
We have all seen the commissioning of reports such as Chilcot and Leveson, and there is great news coverage at the time. Millions and millions of pounds have been spent on those reports. What has happened about the Chilcot report? Absolutely nothing. What has happened about the Leveson report? Absolutely nothing. This is a disgrace in relation to taxpayers’ money. I expect the House to take this issue seriously and to make sure that we get these reports delivered here as soon as possible. I assure the House that if there were an Amess report in years to come, I would not rest until action had been taken.
I conclude with Southend’s bid to be City of Culture. I was very disappointed that neither Southend nor anywhere in the south of the country was on the shortlist of four. All I can suggest to the House is that the Unite trade union probably had something to do with rigging the ballot. That said, I am now announcing that Southend-on-Sea will be the alternative City of Culture in 2017. We will do it through private enterprise, and I hope that everyone will visit Southend to see it.
I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, your fellow Deputies, the Speaker of the House, all the Attendants, and everyone who works here a wonderful summer after what has been a tremendous success in terms of sporting endeavours. If anyone is at a loose end, I would welcome them to come and see how Southend-on-Sea rocks.
Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)
Edward Leigh Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Williamson
Here we go again. I was going to go on to say that the Leader of the House accused my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) of putting up chaff, and here we have yet more chaff from the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). There is a clear legal definition of a consultant and if he needs to check that out, I suggest he look up the dictionary definition. I am not going to waste the limited amount of time I have explaining it to him. He knows very well what a consultant is.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth pointed out, perception is key in this agenda. We know that Parliament and MPs are held in very low esteem by many of the electorate and it is our duty to try to repair the trust of the electorate. I say that because I have spoken to many constituents—people have also written to me—who have said, for example, that the top-down reorganisation of the national health service was done only because many senior Conservative MPs stood to benefit financially from the 49% privatisation. Surely none of us, on either side of the Chamber, can allow that sort of perception to persist among the wider electorate. People need to have trust in their Members of Parliament. The motion would go a long way towards re-establishing that trust with the electorate at large.
The Leader of the House implied that agreeing the motion would impose some terrible, onerous obligation on Members, as though this idea had somehow dropped from space, from Mars or somewhere. However, if we look around the world, it becomes clear that the restrictions imposed on fellow parliamentarians in other countries are much more stringent than the restrictions in the UK. Our friends in America have imposed strong, stringent restrictions on the elected representatives who serve in that country. This motion contains a reasonable and measured proposition that would put us on a par with many of our international colleagues.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I do not understand why, under the terms of the motion, the hon. Gentleman would be happy with me doing what I did a few years ago, when I spent five months doing a fraud trial as a barrister, but would apparently not be happy with me attending 12 board meetings a year, all properly declared. How can attending just 12 board meetings a year prevent me from doing my job in this place? I do not understand the terms of the motion.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson),who, I know, speaks from the heart on this and many other subjects. I agree with his analysis of the pressures faced by many working people who have one, two or even more jobs to do during the working week, but I must point out to him that the motion does not do what he wants. It is very narrowly defined. It deals with particular types of financial relationship, but it does not deal with partnerships or with contracts of employment. In his powerful speech, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) demolished the basis for the motion.
Sir Edward Leigh
Apart from the obvious point that the motion is defective—it does not mention earnings from, for instance, rented property—it constitutes an attempt to create a political class. The only way in which such people can express themselves, earn more money, or gain more power or prestige is to become Ministers, and that plays into the hands of Front Benchers. It gives them more and more power, and puts us more and more in their pockets.
Mr Buckland
If we breed a political class that enters this place with a diminished and diminishing knowledge of the outside world, the walls of the Westminster bubble will become thicker and thicker and we will genuinely create two nations, one of which will be entirely ignorant of the other.
Paul Flynn
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but it is part of a different argument.
The public will not see this subject in subtle tones or have regard to the lawyers’ arguments we are hearing. In 2009, after the great screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal, our reputation was at rock bottom, but now it is even worse—it is subterranean. We saw the reaction to the suggestion that MPs’ salaries should be increased: all the old resentment was churned up.
The Daily Telegraph did democracy a reasonable turn by submitting a freedom of information request that demanded to know the most popular book that wicked MPs were borrowing from the Commons Library. I am sure that its journalists were desperate for another negative story about MPs and that they prayed in their offices that that book would be “Fifty Shades of Gray”, “How to Keep a Moat”, or “Duck House Owning for Beginners”. However, the book in greatest demand at the Library was the improving tract that I wrote, which recommends that MPs live off their salary.
We must look at this from the perspective of outsiders, not by considering subtle points about what is unearned income and what is a salary. If Members want to get outside experience, there are splendid institutions in the House through which we can go off to join the Army, Navy or Air Force, or secure a fellowship with a commercial firm over many months. Those experiences are marvellous, but the important point is that they are not paid. The great resentment among the public arises because we receive a full-time wage and so we should be doing full-time work.
Sir Edward Leigh
The hon. Gentleman talks about resentment, but the public are angry about MPs’ expenses and salaries because they pay for them. Is he really suggesting that the public are furious that a Member of Parliament attends 12 board meetings a year? Does that really make them angry when they are not paying for it?
Pat Glass
If the hon. Gentleman had been present in the debate for more than three minutes, he would have understood it better.
The current system allows MPs to take additional jobs and to get paid for them so long as they declare them in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I do not understand this. It seems to be completely within the rules and I am willing to accept that in the vast majority of cases MPs can operate without any conflict of interest in practice. However, we have to understand the perception outside this place. This is a Westminster bubble.
Pat Glass
No, I will not.
Government Members have argued about the intricacies of the motion and the legal aspects, but this is about how it plays outside this place. The perception among the public is that MPs are getting kick-backs for services rendered, and that damages the reputation of politics—it damages the reputation of us all. I support a ban on remunerated directorships and paid consultancies and a cap on other forms of earned income. We have a cap on benefits, so why cannot we have a cap on MPs’ income?
Government Members have argued about this and confused the issue, but it is simple: it is an issue of access and of privileged access. It is about people outside this place paying for special access and privilege in a way that the vast majority of the people who vote for us and who pay their taxes and MPs’ salaries never can.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Before I was elected, I ran a solicitors practice as a sole practitioner. I gave up my business, which I had worked hard to build up, to become a Member of Parliament. I made a commitment at that time that I would work full time as a Member of Parliament. I think that was the right thing to do.
I do not believe that my giving up that business and stopping practising as a solicitor has prevented me from being a member of the local community, maintaining my relationship with the legal profession in my community or keeping in touch with the people I represent. Government Members are promulgating the extraordinary idea that to remain in touch with the outside world, we have to receive a salary. We do hundreds of things in our job as Members of Parliament which ensure that we have a connection with our constituents.
Ian Lucas
I will make a little progress and if I have time, I will give way.
It has always amazed me that some Members of Parliament continue to do other jobs. Why would someone become a Member of Parliament if they wanted to be a company director or a consultant? They could be a company director or a consultant without being a Member of Parliament. Becoming an MP is not a route to becoming a company director or a consultant—or is it? I always ask myself why it is that companies want MPs as consultants or directors. Is it for their unique insights on the world? Even the cleverest of MPs—and there are some very self-regarding MPs on the Government Benches today—should not flatter themselves. It is clear why such posts are offered to Members of Parliament. It is not because of their unique intelligence, but because they are Members of Parliament. It is because of the influence that Members of Parliament have and the access that that buys.
Ian Lucas
As interesting as the hon. Gentleman thinks he is, I was not talking about him.
No one should have privileged access to an MP. Even more importantly, no one should be able to secure access to an MP by paying them. For that reason, I welcome the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition that MPs should be prevented from holding paid directorships and consultancies. Such arrangements give those who pay for it unique access to MPs.
It was interesting that the Leader of the House referred to a job offer that he received after he became a Member of Parliament. I would be interested to know why that company decided he was the person they wanted to give a job to. Does he know? Can he tell us? I would be delighted to take an intervention. Let me tell him the reason: it is because he is an MP and the company wanted access to him.
Sir Edward Leigh
I wonder whether we can get a bit of consensus across the Back Benches. Is not the real problem those second jobs that take MPs away from their constituencies, such as being a Minister? Can we agree that Ministers should not be paid any more than Back Benchers?
Ian Lucas
For far too short a time, I was a Minister. I got there in the end. I believe that being a Minister benefited my constituents. They understood that being a Minister was an important part of my job as a Member of Parliament. Ministers are also Members of Parliament, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that they in any way diminish themselves as MPs by being Ministers.
The key to the motion is access to MPs. I have not spoken about the hundreds of thousands of pounds that some Government Members earn. [Interruption.] I will not name them, because unlike the Leader of the House I have not given them notice. However, MPs should have a look at the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: a number of Members earn hundreds of thousands of pounds. This issue is about buying access. MPs should look at themselves in the mirror and ask whether they are really so clever that companies, which are engaged in business MPs have no experience in, really want them to join their boards for their personal knowledge and insight. The reality is that companies want privileged access to MPs and are prepared to pay for it.
Business of the House
Edward Leigh Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government do not have a policy for the value of the pound in international markets. We have a policy to support growth, enterprise and employment in this country and we can see how employment has increased and how we are supporting the private sector in wealth creation through deregulation measures, the reduction of corporate tax rates and the dramatic increase announced by the Chancellor in access to investment allowances. There are issues with exports, particularly, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, because of the dramatic reduction in demand in the eurozone, which is hitting so many economies that are dependent on it. At the same time, in the first two years of this Government, British exports of goods have increased by 47% to China, by 33% to India, by 33% to Brazil and by 134% to Russia. As he rightly says, we need therefore to focus on stimulating that activity. The Chancellor’s autumn statement gave very specific additional support to UK Trade & Investment to do exactly that.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Yesterday was estimates day, and as usual we voted through countless billions of pounds of public expenditure with no vote and no debate. Yesterday, however, something different happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) tried to talk about estimates on estimates day, but he was immediately ruled out of order and told to get back to medical implants. As it happens, we have produced a report for the Chancellor on how to improve the accountability of estimates to Parliament and it is sitting in the Library. May we have a debate in Government time about how we can talk about estimates on estimates day?
Mr Lansley
I was present in the House and I think my hon. Friend is referring to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) said that he believed that if he had sought to talk about estimates, he would have been ruled out of order, although I do not believe that the Chair issued any ruling at all. As the House will know, the determination of the subjects for debate on those two estimates days was conducted by the Liaison Committee. I have read the report published by my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Southport. There is a fair point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and I have discussed on the Public Accounts Commission, about improving and enhancing the scrutiny of public expenditure by this House in a number of ways. I shall not talk about what they might be, but I share the view that we should find an opportunity in the future to try to enhance that.
HEALTH
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I want to thank and salute many hundreds—possibly even thousands—of people in my constituency who make a huge contribution every year to the communities in which they live, often on a voluntary basis. I know that it is very fashionable nowadays to suggest that communities are constantly under pressure, disintegrating, transitory or being disaggregated in one form or another, but I am here to reassure the House that in Central Devon community is alive and whole.
It is invidious to single out individual organisations and individuals, of course, because for every one I mention there are many I will not have time to mention. None the less, some have been particularly special to me as a Member of Parliament over the past couple of years. I want to start with a gentleman called Brian Warren, who has run an organisation called Farm Crisis Network for the past decade or so. It provides pastoral support to our farming community, which, as you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, has been under considerable pressure over many years. The foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 had its epicentre in Hatherleigh in my constituency, and many of us still remember to this day the pyres burning, the burning cattle and the pall of black smoke that filled the skies above Devon. It was a very difficult time. We are also aware of the difficulties associated with bovine TB and the challenges of milk prices, which are under pressure from supermarkets. Brian has done an extraordinary job with his colleagues on an entirely voluntary basis, providing compassion to many farmers in my constituency who have much needed it.
I want also to thank all those who are involved in the 125 town and parish councils that I have scattered across my 550 square miles of Devon. I can assure hon. Members that I do not manage to get round all of them on a regular basis—there are too many—but many people give up a great deal of their time, and that is much appreciated. I particularly thank the town clerks of my larger towns—Judith Hart in Buckfastleigh, John Germon in Ashburton, Terry Westwood in Bovey Tracey, John Carlton in Chudleigh, Martin Maggs in Crediton, and Don Bent in Okehampton. For all the people they serve, a big thank you.
I have had quite a lot of involvement with the Royal British Legion this year. It does an extraordinary job for many well deserving men and women and the families of those who fight on our behalf. We have heard much about Afghanistan this afternoon. The Royal British Legion is not just the custodian of remembrance. It also provides practical help to individuals and families, and I am particularly grateful to the Royal British Legion in Ashburton. I should like to thank Maurice Mann, David Lewis, Kath Pugh and Bob Shemeld for the support they have given to the legion locally.
I thank Sandra Coleman, who has looked after the museum, the Valiant Soldier, which was a pub that was closed in Buckfastleigh in 1965 and has been preserved exactly as it was the day that it closed, including the coins and the change in the till. In addition to looking after the museum, Sandra has started a project to preserve and archive the history of the town. I was privileged to have been present when she was awarded the freedom of the town of Buckfastleigh in July this year.
I salute Sue Eales, a lady who has fostered many children in and around Ashburton. She provides them with the love, happiness, respect and security that we would all like to see our children receive. She is a very special lady, one of those great unsung heroes, and I am very proud to be able to mention her in this debate. I mention also Deborah Sterling, who has fought hard for youth services in Ashburton, especially a new skateboard park, and her son, for his imagination in designing the park.
Peter Mallaband, who lives in New Park near Bovey Tracey, has assisted me a great deal in the work that I and many others in the House have done in respect of park home legislation and in trying to improve the rights of park home owners. Peter has always been immensely generous with his time, not just to me, but to other local residents in other local parks in my constituency, including those who live in Buckingham Orchard in Chudleigh Knighton, who have had a particularly difficult period over the past few years.
I thank Wendy Brown and Sue Goode, who run the Crediton food bank and whose services will be much appreciated and in many cases much needed this Christmas. I thank Chris Gibbs, who has done a huge amount to support his community of Tedburn St Mary, so much so that he was in the vanguard of that village being voted the best village in England and Wales some years ago on the strength of its community cohesion and the vibrancy of the community there. I was privileged to work with him in fending off a proposed permanent road closure that would have much inconvenienced the local villagers.
I would like to mention Sally Hordern, who lives in the village of Exbourne and has fought very hard to get a new community store there ever since the village store closed just over a decade ago. She fought through all the obstacles. I had the privilege earlier this year of opening that extraordinary store, which is partly underground. It has a beautiful design and is a great monument and tribute to her and all those who worked on the project.
I would like to pay tribute to the people of Kennford and Buckfastleigh, who endured some of the worst flooding the country has seen recently, and I was grateful that the Prime Minister was able to come down to Buckfastleigh to meet some of the residents. One of the things that struck me was that, although it was an absolute tragedy, particularly for those affected, it was also an opportunity for the community to come together, and they did so magnificently.
I would like to salute Mary Stephenson, a constituent who has done a great deal regarding prisoner rehabilitation and looking after families whose loved ones have gone to prison. I spent some time with her at Channings Wood prison earlier this year and was much moved and impressed by her project and by her work and dedication and that of her colleagues.
I would like to thank Paul Dobbie, who runs the Room 13 youth facility in Okehampton, a vibrant and positive place, and Chris Marson, who lives in the small village of Northlew in the west of my constituency. He has managed to improve the broadband connection significantly by employing ingenious new technologies, which has helped the village a great deal, and he has also furthered the new community store there.
It remains for me finally to thank the staff in my office, Chris Yeo and, in particular, Dominic King and Mike Knuckey, for supporting me and all my demanding ways. I also wish to thank my family—
Mel Stride
I will thank my hon. Friend in due course.
I thank my wife Michelle and my three daughters. I also wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, your family and, indeed, your millions of admirers up and down the country a very happy Christmas and hope that I have many more speaking opportunities at your behest in 2013.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend raises an important point. People are deeply concerned about the ability of the fire service to get to fires. When serious flames stretched on to the high road in my constituency and went on for hours, we needed our fire service. Even during that incident there were concerns, given what was happening, about the ability of fire services to get to those fires. This is serious. We are seeing the decimation of the London fire service. No fewer than 17 fire stations are earmarked for closure across the capital.
I am conscious that other colleagues want to make important contributions, so I will end my remarks. Over the Christmas break, which is a serious time, we will see how important our emergency services are, and that is always the case. This House will need to return to the subject. I hope that the Mayor will go into the detail of what is being proposed in London, because I am deeply concerned that, over the coming months and years, many Londoners and, indeed, many in this House who might need to rely on the police or fire service will find that they are not there for them in the way that they require.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Why is it that, 65 years after 55,000 of them—young men of Bomber Command—gave up their lives for our freedom and national survival, they are still waiting for a medal? If not now, when so few of them are left with us, when?
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
May I take this opportunity, Mr Deputy Speaker, to wish you and, indeed, all the officers and servants of this House the season’s greetings and the very best for Christmas and the new year?
It has been a privilege this year to attend the 25th anniversary of the Brent pensioners forum in my constituency. The forum has been led and championed by Vi Steele.
Business of the House
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her opening remarks. I am not sure that she was listening to the Prime Minister yesterday, not least in relation to his clear and robust answer on our support to Rwanda and the reasons it is being given. He was absolutely clear that we are making clear to the Rwandan Government our opposition to any intervention on their part in the Congo. It is always tempting not to reply to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but let me be absolutely clear that the Prime Minister gave the Leveson inquiry all the information requested.
The shadow Leader of the House was sitting in the Chamber this morning when the urgent question received the reply that was required, so her remarks are astonishing. It was made very clear, and more than once, as the Prime Minister said, that we will bring forward the Energy Bill shortly and legislate so that people get the best possible tariff. That is exactly what the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), said and what the Prime Minister said yesterday.
The hon. Lady asked about European debates. I remind her that we will indeed have a European debate in this House on Wednesday 31 October, as I have just announced as part of the provisional business, on a motion to approve European documents relating to EU budget simplification and the multi-annual financial framework. That will give an opportunity, in addition to the Prime Minister’s statement on the EU Council, for Members to debate the future of EU budgets. That is from a Government who are determined to ensure that we do not see increases in the EU budget of the kind we saw in the past and, still less, increases in this country’s contributions, such as those that followed the former Labour Prime Minister’s giving up the rebate that this country had enjoyed.
The hon. Lady asked about my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. He is doing his job and doing it well. He is now in his place, but he also has many other duties elsewhere in the House. He knows, as he has made clear, that he made a mistake. He apologised for it, and the police officer concerned and the Metropolitan police accepted that apology. I will take no lectures today, or indeed during next Wednesday’s Opposition day debate on the police, about the support this Government give the police. In my constituency in Cambridgeshire we are seeing an increase in the number of police and additional police are being recruited. For my part, as someone whose brother was a senior officer in the Metropolitan police and whose niece and her husband are officers, I support them. We support them and will continue to do so.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Clearly, we have a very light legislative programme this year. Rather than regretting that, should we not rejoice in it? After all, in the past 30 years, in which we have had large overall majorities, so much legislative rubbish has poured through this building, imposing more and more rules and regulations on people. Should not our motto be, to adapt Lord Falkland’s dictum, “When it is not necessary to legislate, it is necessary not to legislate”? Is that not a good motto for this Conservative Government?
Mr Lansley
I think that is always a good motto to pursue, but from our point of view it is sometimes necessary to legislate. That is what we are doing, not least in the progress that we have already made on the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill, and also with the publication today of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill and the Bill relating to HGV road user levies. We are taking further measures that will promote growth and the development of infrastructure in this country, getting us the growth that we know is an absolute necessity, alongside deficit reduction, for improving our competitive position.
When the Leader of the Opposition is out marching with the TUC and it is saying that it wants long-term economic progress but does not think that political leaders today are offering that, he might reflect that that is exactly true in relation to him—that the Labour party’s leadership are not addressing the long-term economic problems of this country, they are denying the deficit and they have no policies for growth. We in the coalition are putting forward those policies for growth.
Business of the House
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the hon. Lady and have seen that article in The Guardian. As she says, my hon. Friend the Minister for disabilities takes the issue seriously and is intervening. It is important that those in wheelchairs have access to public transport, and I will ask my hon. Friend to write to the hon. Lady.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) in pressing the Leader of the House on the appalling decision by the charity commissioners to revoke charitable status from the churches called Gospel halls of the Plymouth Brethren on the ground that they do not admit non-members to their holy communion, although they do admit non-members to all services, bible readings and all the rest? These people are a small and completely harmless Christian community. For almost 200 years we have proclaimed in this Chamber the right to religious freedom. This is a vital and important issue, and we should proclaim it.
Sir George Young
Further to the original question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), I must say that it has been decided not to enter one of the Brethren halls on the register of charities because the legal basis for the registration of that organisation as a charity is not clear, and the question, as I said a moment ago, was whether the trust met the public benefit requirement, given the limited social engagement of the followers of the Brethren in the wider community. That decision has been challenged by way of an appeal to the first tier tribunal, and that is probably the right way to let it proceed.
House of Lords Reform Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
The average length of service now is 24 or 26 years, so the proposal is an improvement.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We have heard many fine speeches over the past two days, but one of the finest was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns). Of course, I have absolutely nothing to lose personally by voting against the Government tonight, but he has. However, I assured him this morning that the French have a phrase, “Reculer pour mieux sauter”, which means, “To retreat better to leap forward”, and that is what he will do. The House always respects somebody who resigns on a point of principle, and it has always been a matter of great regret to me that I did not do it over Maastricht. I have lived to regret that, but he will not regret his decision, I assure him.
The good speeches have been those based on principle. There has been a lot of criticism of the Deputy Prime Minister, but I thought that he gave a good speech because it was based on his own principles, although I did not agree with him. He was like a young officer at the battle of the Somme, marching forward, assailed on all sides, ultimately to senseless destruction, but there was nothing wrong with what he was arguing for. I do not usually like to be party political, but the two weakest speeches came from the Opposition Front Benchers, who, like St Augustine, said that they want to stop sinning but not yet. They said that they are in favour of the Bill but have not been prepared to answer consistent questions about how much time they want for it.
On a great constitutional issue such as this, one has to be prepared to argue from first principles. I am afraid that I am a Conservative and therefore generally wish to conserve things. Certainly if something is working, I wish to conserve it. I know it is a bit of a cliché, but Lord Falkland’s dictum that when it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change is true of the House of Lords. Basically, it works, and I do not want to change it. I start from that point of first principle and will not easily be budged from it.
What is so important about this Bill that the Government are prepared to wade through months of purgatory to try to secure it? We heard earlier that apparently the Catholic Church has abolished limbo, but it has not yet abolished purgatory, and if this Bill is allowed to continue our party will be in purgatory, as we were over Maastricht, for week after week and month after month. What is the great point of principle? When the whole country is assailed by such appalling difficulties and problems, when we know that the economy is not going anywhere, when we are constantly having to wade through blood and make cuts where we do not want to make them, what is so important about this Bill? Why have the Government, with, dare I say it, some parliamentary incompetence, placed themselves in a position whereby they have handed power to the Opposition? I criticise the Opposition, but they are only doing their job. Labour is a ruthless operation when it comes to opposition—it is much better at it than we ever are—and it is playing this very well in trying to gum up the whole works.
What about all the other Bills? Are they not important? Are we not here to try to achieve something?
Chris Huhne
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on D-day, when we invaded France, this Parliament was discussing Rab Butler’s Education Bill? Does he not agree that Governments, on balance, should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time?
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly talked about weeks and months. May I assure Members on both sides of the House that the Opposition have made it clear that we do not intend to wreck or filibuster the Bill? This is about genuine debate, and there is no confusion as to the position that the Opposition will be adopting.
Mr Leigh
I think that that was said with a bit of irony and that the hon. Gentleman protests too much. Of course the Opposition are not going to wreck the Bill, which, at an appropriate moment, they will allow to get to the other place—after they have ensured that the country has had the unholy spectacle of our discussing, week after week, while this appalling recession is going on, an issue that, I can assure him, is of no interest whatsoever in the Dog and Duck in Scunthorpe. What on earth are we doing?
What is so wrong with the House of Lords? The point that I make continually is that whereas over the past 15 years, we in the Commons have had the collective courage to defeat the Government only 10 times, our friends in the other place have defeated the Government no fewer than 576 times. That point has been made already, but it is a powerful one.
I argue against this reform from first principles because, inevitably, the people who will be elected to the House of Lords will be politicians. When I made that point to the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, he said that they would be a different sort of politician. What is a different sort of politician? We are all politicians and we are all ambitious. Although we deny it, we all want office. There is nothing wrong with that. Therefore, to a greater or lesser extent, we are all creatures of the Whips Office. We have to accept that. We come into politics because we have the ambition to become Ministers and to achieve something. The point has been made again and again that many people in the other place are past ambition.
Why do we want to abolish an institution that has held the Government so closely to account that, in the past 15 years, it has defeated them no fewer than 576 times? The fundamental problem is that once the House of Lords is elected, it will become the poodle of the House of Commons. The real problem is not with the primacy of the House of Commons, but that the Executive are all-powerful. It is only in the other place that there is any decent scrutiny and that the Government are occasionally defeated.
I am not only worried that the Government will have an easier ride in the reformed House of Lords; we must ask ourselves why our friends in the Liberal Democrat party are so determined to get the Bill through. It is so important to them because once it is passed, half of our legislature will be elected by proportional representation and, therefore, the Liberals will have a permanent lock on half our Parliament. It will be impossible for people such as me who want constantly to come forward with radical ideas from the right and for Labour Members who want to come forward with radical ideas from the left to wade through the dominance of the Liberal establishment in the other place. There would never have been the kind of reforms that Mrs Thatcher achieved in office under that system. Many people in this House may think that that would have been good, but I think that it would have been a great shame.
That is why this is an important Bill, why we should be discussing it up and down the country, and why we have to defeat it. We cannot just measure this argument in terms of programme motions; we have to measure it in terms of what is right for our country. What is right for our country is to retain the system of an elected House of Commons and a revising second Chamber that does an excellent job of improving legislation. We must leave it alone and defeat this Bill tonight.
Mr Dorrell
My hon. Friend repeats a point made several times in the debate, and I accept that it is a serious point. His point is about the Blair Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough quoted 576 defeats in the Lords, presumably over a slightly different time scale. However, those defeats were over individual measures in a Bill, and they often came back to be reversed by this place.
When we stand back from the matter, we see that the House of Lords cannot be said to provide the check on ill-developed, badly thought out legislation. Too often, Ministers are tempted down the road of trying to create legislative monuments for themselves. Occasionally, when I sat on the legislative committee in the Cabinet—in another existence, many years ago—we heard it argued that we needed a Bill from a particular Department to create a political centrepiece for the Government’s programme. That is not a good reason for proposing legislative change. To be effective, legislation needs to be properly thought out. It is far better seen as a rifle than a blunderbuss.
Mr Dorrell
I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Either the Bill will create a logjam—because people in the other place, with a different mandate and a more leisurely time scale, have the willingness and the capacity to create an effective check—or the other place will merely be a poodle. We can pay our money and take our choice between those two arguments. Personally, I think that the longer mandate, as well as all the other elements of the primacy of the Commons which are included in the Bill, are more likely to create an effective check on the legislative ambitions that I have mentioned. In other words, for me, the issue in the Bill is not the balance between the Lords and the Commons; it is the balance between Parliament as a whole and Whitehall. I am a strong supporter of a more effective Parliament, in order to create a more effective check on the legislative ambitions of Whitehall.
We have heard various speeches. Some have argued for a unicameralist approach. I have made it clear why I am not in favour of a unicameralist approach. I am in favour of a strong second Chamber that will create a genuine check on the legislative ambitions of Whitehall. I am persuaded that the best way of providing that is to introduce an elected element into the upper House.
Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)
Edward Leigh Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Denham
It must, shall we say, have occurred to the Secretary of State that the Cabinet Secretary did not know of his memo. It must certainly have occurred to the Prime Minister that the Cabinet Secretary could not possibly have had the chance to consider that memo before he wrote the letter. Thus, from 22 December onwards, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have relied essentially on a fiction—a letter from Sir Gus O’Donnell that relied on his not knowing what had been going on between them in the memos.
Mr Denham
I need to make some progress.
What do we now know about the conduct of the Secretary of State? On 12 November 2010, he was advised not to have any external discussions on the merger and not to write to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills about it. He was told that if he did so, it carried risks to the robustness of the decisions.
As other Members have said, there were two key parts to the memo sent to the Prime Minister. The first lets us know in no unambiguous terms of the Secretary of State’s support for the merger proceeding and his belief that if it were blocked, our media sector would suffer for years. Secondly, however, and of equal significance, it proposed a meeting between the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Business Secretary and the Culture Secretary himself
“to discuss the policy issues that are thrown up as a result.”
In the light of the legal advice given to the Secretary of State on 12 November, he must have known not only that sending that memo was inappropriate, but that the course of action he was proposing—a cabal of Ministers at the top of Government involving the one person who was meant to be acting in a quasi-judicial manner and who should have had no discussions and no connections with anyone else—flew in the face of the advice he had been given and was clearly acting in an entirely inappropriate manner.