Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ellie Reeves and John Glen

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The Opposition support the new Government’s aspirations for the highest ministerial standards, and we acknowledge the significant experience that the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff can bring to her role as envoy to the nations and regions. Why then, in breach of Cabinet Office guidance, have Ministers not published a word on her terms of reference, her new salary or her special adviser severance payment, and is she correct in her understanding that she is at the top of the list of new peers?

[Ellie Reeves]

Anything in relation to the former chief of staff will be announced in due course. It is not right for me to comment on the terms and conditions of any individual.

Reporting Ministerial Gifts and Hospitality

Debate between Ellie Reeves and John Glen

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister to make a statement on the reporting and acceptance of ministerial gifts and hospitality.

[The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)]

I wish to update the House on the action that the Government will take to enhance transparency in relation to ministerial gifts and hospitality.

Transparency is a critical part of restoring public faith in politics, and the Government recognise that changes are needed. Under the last Government, the rules for Ministers declaring hospitality were less transparent than those for other Members of Parliament. Lists of hospitality received by Ministers were published by Whitehall Departments only once a quarter and did not include the value. In contrast, MPs’ and shadow Ministers’ interests must be declared within 28 days, and must include the cost of the hospitality. Tory Ministers used this loophole even when events appeared to have had little connection with their Government roles. Both the House of Commons Committee on Standards and the Committee on Standards in Public Life have called for that disparity to be removed.

Under the last Government, Labour Front Benchers who attended events could end up sitting next to their Tory counterparts. Labour MPs had to declare details in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—importantly, including value—while Tory Ministers did not, under the equivalent ministerial process. The Government will correct this imbalance: the Tory freebies loophole will be closed. In the future, the Government will publish a register of Ministers’ gifts and hospitality on a basis broadly equivalent to that which is published in the registers of Members’ and Lords’ interests. This will bring the publication of ministerial transparency data more closely into line with the parliamentary regime for gifts and hospitality. The Government intend that these arrangements should be in place as soon as possible and will set out further details in due course.

The Prime Minister intends shortly to issue and publish an updated version of the ministerial code, in which he will set out his expectations for the conduct of all who serve in Government as Ministers. As well as confirming these new reporting arrangements, this will include additional guidance for Ministers on the principles that they should apply when considering whether to accept gifts of offers of hospitality, as part of the Government’s work to restore public faith in politics as a force for good.

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Lady for her response. On the steps of Downing Street on 5 July, the Prime Minister pledged to put

“country first and party second”.

Labour Ministers have been beset by a series of scandals involving freebies. The Prime Minister has claimed that this was all a “perfectly sensible arrangement”. Does the right hon. Lady still believe that?

What gifts and hospitality can Ministers now accept? Can Cabinet Ministers continue to party in DJ booths in Ibiza? Will Ministers be banned from Oasis 2025 tour junkets, or was it just Taylor Swift that was a handout too far? What role did Downing Street play in the VIP escort for Taylor Swift, further to the free Taylor Swift tickets from Universal Music? Have all the political staff in the Prime Minister’s parliamentary office correctly declared their financial interests and hospitality received? The new chief of staff’s entry seems very empty. Have all ministerial donations in kind been declared at their full market value? Why do Ministers refuse to say, in answer to parliamentary questions, when the new ministerial transparency platform will go live? Is the sheer scale on which the Prime Minister benefits from others’ largesse now a conflict of interest? Will the hon. Lady confirm that the Prime Minister is taking a donation in kind of £100,000 a year from Arsenal football club, and will he now recuse himself from involvement in the football governance Bill?

Amid scandals such as “cash for croissants”, “free-gear Keir” and “passes for glasses”, where is Labour’s new ethics and integrity commission, and what have Labour donors got in return for their generosity? What discussions did the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have with Lord Alli on ministerial and public appointments? Will Ministers place in the Library all the documents relating to Lord Alli’s “Operation Integrity”? Finally, can the Minister explain to this House why the millionaire Prime Minister cannot clothe himself without gifts from others?

[Ellie Reeves]

As I said to the right hon. Gentleman in my first response, this Government are committed to rebuilding trust in politics. The Prime Minister has commissioned a new set of principles on gifts and hospitality, which will be published shortly. That will outlaw the Tory freebie loophole, because this Government are committed to being more up front and open than our predecessors.

We will take no lectures from the Conservative party on gifts and hospitality, standards in public life or trust in politics. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what shattered trust in politics: the behaviour of the Conservatives in their 14 years in power. They partied in Downing Street while the whole country sacrificed its freedom. They handed lucrative covid contracts to friends and donors, and failed to expel MPs who were caught breaking the rules. That is the difference between this Government and the last one.

We are strengthening the rules. When Owen Paterson was found to have broken the rules, the Conservatives tried to rip them up, and now they want us to believe that they care about trust in politics. This is utterly shameless. Of course, it was not just Tory sleaze and scandal that eroded trust; just as corrosive has been the complete and utter failure of Conservative politicians to keep the promises they made to the British people. Now the work of change begins. As I have already set out, it starts with rebuilding trust in our politics, which we are committed to doing. The cynical and confected outrage that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman today is fooling no one. If Conservative Members really want to help repair the damage they caused to trust in politics, they would do well to back the changes we are making, and to say sorry for the sleaze and scandal that plagued their 14 years in power.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords]

Debate between Ellie Reeves and John Glen

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Reeves]

I absolutely agree. Surely a better solution to this issue is to have an outright ban on cold calling in personal injury claims by claims management companies, which is exactly what amendments 8 and 9 would do.

New clause 4 gives the single financial guidance body the ability to advise the Government if it considers a ban on cold calling by CMCs to be necessary. If the Government receive such advice, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to impose such a ban. However, the Bill does not compel the single financial guidance body to give such advice in relation to cold calling; nor are the Government required to act if they receive advice.

Although the Government have promised decisive action from the outset, I am concerned that the Bill is filled with ifs, buts and maybes and still falls far short of a ban on cold calling. Amendment 8 would commit the single financial guidance body to advise on how best to implement a ban within 12 months of the Bill being passed, and amendment 9 would require the Government to act outright and impose the ban. A ban on cold calling commands support from over two thirds of the population. We must respond to that and strengthen the Bill by agreeing to amendments 8 and 9, to see through a complete and necessary ban on cold calling.

[John Glen]

I am acutely conscious of the need not only to get on to the second group of amendments but to respond to the amendments in the first group. I will do my best to address all of them, and I will give myself five minutes to do so.

I will start with new clause 7 and amendment 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd). The body is already expected to develop a national strategy to improve people’s financial capability, including ensuring that consumers improve their financial resilience, so the Government believe that the amendments are not necessary.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Debate between Ellie Reeves and John Glen

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, on my first Bill Committee.

New clause 9 would introduce a much-needed ban on cold calling by claims management companies, including in relation to personal injury. Although the Government have previously stated that they are committed to introducing a ban, new clause 6 simply does not go far enough.

It is estimated that claims management companies make around 51 million personal injury-related calls and texts each year and that most people have received one. Not only are such calls a nuisance, they also exploit vulnerable people. Not surprisingly, 67% of people are in favour of a ban on personal injury cold calling. It is worth noting that solicitors are already banned from cold calling in personal injury claims, but the fact that claims management companies are not risks bringing the sector into disrepute.

Cold calling can generate the false perception that obtaining compensation is easy, even where there is no injury. It can put pressure on people to pursue unmeritorious or, at the very worst, fraudulent claims, which they otherwise may not do. It may never have been the intention of someone to make a claim, but if they receive a text promising them thousands of pounds, it might seem very tempting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington has already spoken about, there is evidence to suggest that cold calling has led to a rise in holiday sickness claims.

There is a context. The Government are proposing to reform compensation rules for whiplash claims and to increase the small claims limit in road traffic accidents from £1,000 to £5,000, and in public liability and employers’ liability claims from £1,000 to £2,000. The Government say that that is to cut down on fraudulent claims and bring down insurance premiums. However, many, including myself, are concerned that it will have a significant impact on access to justice, with people not being able to access proper legal advice in such claims, which can often be complex. Surely a better solution would be to have an outright ban on cold calling in personal injury claims by claims management companies, which is what new clause 9 seeks to do. The new clause is clear—it would result in a ban on all cold calling by claims management companies and would also ban other methods of approach, such as texting.

In contrast, new clause 6 creates confusion. It would ban cold calling unless someone has given consent. What amounts to consent in this context may not always be clear and people, especially the most vulnerable, may struggle to understand that they have consented to being cold called or may not appreciate what they have consented to. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West has raised concerns about the elderly and infirm. The Minister has not today been able to give any comprehensive answer on how those fears will be dealt with. Put simply, new clause 6 does not go far enough to ban the scourge of cold calling.

Earlier this month, Lord Keen stated in evidence to the Justice Committee that

“effectively stopping cold calling is an immensely complex process, because cold calling nowadays is carried out by unregulated entities from outwith the United Kingdom. We have instances of it being carried on in south America to target the UK. They then spoof their telephone numbers...so that it is impossible to trace the origins of the call.”

Will the Minister therefore assure me that more will be done to tackle such complex instances of cold calling, notwithstanding the measures in the Bill, so that the problem does not simply carry on under a different guise and vulnerable people do not continue to be exploited in this way?

[John Glen]

Opposition new clause 9 is identical to the Lords amendment and seeks to compel the FCA to ban unsolicited direct approaches by, on behalf of or for the benefit of companies providing claims management services. It also seeks to ban those companies from using data obtained through those methods. Unfortunately, it would give the FCA a duty it cannot enforce under its current regime.

I assure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge that the Government are committed to tackling the issue properly and have consulted with the FCA, the claims management regulation unit and the Information Commissioner’s Office to ensure that Government new clause 6 does so in the most effective way—it will amend the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 to prohibit direct marketing calls by claims management services unless an individual has given their consent. I was challenged on that matter, and I will clarify by letter.

The provision will be implemented by the ICO as the regulator responsible for the enforcement of the regulations. It has considerable powers and can issue fines of up £500,000. Under the incoming general data protection regulation, the unlawful use of personal data can attract fines of up to £17 million or 4% of annual turnover. The ICO is committed to enforcing the sanctions in the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 and has issued nearly £3 million in monetary penalties for breaches of direct marketing since January last year. We have worked with the ICO in developing the new clause, and it is confident that it will be able to enforce it in conjunction with the FCA.

The FCA will of course have a role to play and will use all the tools available to take action where it discovers behaviour causing consumer harm. I acknowledge the cases that both Members raised, which are unacceptable. I am also confident that the FCA will work closely with the ICO where breaches are identified. I am sure members of the Committee will agree that it is better to include a new clause that will work—Government new clause 6—than to include new clause 9. As such, I encourage both Members not to press their new clause to a vote.