Summer Adjournment
Gareth Thomas Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I know very well all the places in his constituency he mentioned, and I am looking forward to spending more time at those locations campaigning for Uma Kumaran, his replacement next year. He raised one particularly interesting scenario for me: the fitness challenge of climbing the steps of Stanmore station. In between campaigning for Uma Kumaran, I am training for the London triathlon on Sunday 3 August and I might just come to Stanmore station and take that challenge. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to join me when I do.
I wish to come back to something the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) began his remarks with: the disappointment with the performance of the England football team at the World cup. He suggested, I think in jest, that we should boycott premier league matches because there are too many overseas players. I think that the competition foreign players bring to the premier league is a good thing, but a more comprehensive look at how the interests of fans who want England to do well and who support premier league clubs needs to be thought about, particularly so that those interests can be properly represented in the governance of premier league clubs. Surely it is not an unreasonable ask to have a fan on the board of each club, elected through its football supporters trust—that might be a good thing, in order to ensure that the interests of ordinary football fans are properly represented.
Swansea City stands out as a lone example, as it has genuine fans, elected through the supporters trust, sitting on the board and taking part in all the decisions it makes in the interests of the club. The premier league needs to think through with a little more gusto how Swansea’s example might be replicated. Similarly, an audit of each premier league club’s contribution to grass-roots sport is surely also overdue. Each club should be expected to contribute at least 5% immediately, rising to perhaps some 10%, of TV income to the coaching of the next generation of England’s football fans and players. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask clubs to invest such sums in grass-roots sport in the areas around them.
Let me move on to my second issue. There is a need to review the funding formula for Harrow council and for the NHS in Harrow. The council faces some £75 million in funding cuts over the next four years—£25 million in this year alone. Other nearby councils receive substantially higher per capita funding, so I strongly support the campaign for Harrow council to receive fair funding. I hope that the Minister who is sitting on the Bench today might solicit a letter to me from the Department for Communities and Local Government about Harrow council’s case.
Had NHS England decided to implement the new funding formula it devised, the NHS in Harrow would have received an extra £23 million this year, and indeed next. I say gently that perhaps if the Government had not wasted £3 billion on a completely unnecessary reorganisation of the NHS, NHS England might have been able to find more quickly the funding that will be needed to ease the pressure at Northwick Park hospital, which serves my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Harrow East. The board of The North West London Hospitals NHS Trust has identified an extra 120 beds as necessary just to cope with the existing demand—that is before the closure of Ealing’s accident and emergency department and that of Central Middlesex hospital. That money might also have helped to stop the closure of the Alexandra Avenue urgent hours centre, or polyclinic. It used to be open from 8 am to 8 pm, 365 days a year, providing a hugely valuable service to many of my constituents in the south-west of the borough of Harrow. Sadly, the centre is now open only from 9 am to 4 pm on Saturdays and Sundays, and that situation urgently needs reviewing.
The last issue I wish to touch on is reform of the UK’s pension fund market. It is an almost £3 trillion market, and automatic enrolment is bringing a further 10 million working people into the private pension system. In theory, through our pension and savings funds, we each own a stake in various companies, and have a say in how those companies are run. In practice, that is nonsense. Instead such power is concentrated in the hands of a small number of financial institutions, the pension and savings fund managers or their appointees. They are the ones who, in practice, exercise the power of shareholders. Those institutions, I gently suggest to the Minister, should surely be accountable to our constituents who invest their savings and pension funds. To all intents and purposes, that accountability is largely a myth at the moment. A more accountable investment system is arguably overdue. Savers should surely have guaranteed rights to scrutinise decisions that are made on their behalf by the people who manage their money—the institutional investors.
At the moment, savers have very limited rights to information about what their money is being invested in. Should our constituents not be able to find out how those institutional investors are using shareholder rights that are being exercised in their name? Our constituents should also have access to information about the strategy of the pension or savings fund into which they have put their money, and the risks that are attached to that strategy. Surely they should be able to see an annual report on how the fund has implemented its investment policy over the year and how it plans to mitigate any risks in future.
Our constituents should also be able to question the people who look after their money. Is an annual meeting that much of an unreasonable ask? After all, it is only what companies with normal shareholders have to do. I understand that Legal and General is about to do exactly that, but most of its rivals in the savings market do not have any plans to ape it.
Should our constituents not have the right to be consulted on the investment and voting policies of the institutional investors into whose trust they place their savings and pensions? Should our constituents not also have the right to elect representatives on to the board or governing committee of the pension fund in which they are investing? These are sensible rules that would make the pension and savings fund market a little more accountable. They have been developed by the excellent organisation ShareAction, and I commend them to the House.
Easter Adjournment
Gareth Thomas Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow my parliamentary neighbour, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall). I have always thought that he wears the trauma of living next door to the greatest constituency in the UK—that of Harrow West—extremely lightly, given that he will never have the chance to represent it.
I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s praise for the Wildlife Trusts, and in so doing I would like to take this opportunity, as president of the London Green Belt Council, to praise the contribution of so many residents’ associations across London that defend the green belt and green open spaces in London with great passion and commitment. I am thinking in particular of those in the London borough of Harrow, such as the Harrow Hill trust, the Pinner association, the Headstone residents’ association and the Hatch End association. I pay tribute to their work.
The right hon. Gentleman and I also share an interest in what happens at RAF Northolt. I gently ask the Deputy Leader of the House to ensure that, in future, whenever the Ministry of Defence consults on any plans to change the number of flights in and out of RAF Northolt, it will consult Harrow and Ealing councils as well as Hillingdon council and Hillingdon Members of Parliament. There is substantial concern in my constituency about the significant uplift in the number of flights the MOD is going to allow into RAF Northolt and about the lack of discussion with Harrow MPs and the local council.
I also want to ask the Deputy Leader of the House for his assistance on the issue of policing. The latest figures from the Mayor of London’s office show that, in January, Harrow had 344 police officers and just 38 police community support officers—a total of 382 officers. In March 2010, however, Harrow had a total of 519 police officers, made up of 403 police constables, sergeants and others, and 116 PCSOs. Harrow has therefore seen a 27% fall in the number of police officers since the general election—part of the 3,000 or so police officers axed from the London streets since 2010.
I understand that London has 30,036 police officers, despite the Mayor of London’s promise that he would maintain police numbers at or about 32,000. Indeed, the Deputy Mayor for policing, Stephen Greenhalgh, said last year that it would be a “doomsday scenario” for policing in London if the number dropped below 31,000, but that is what has happened. Over the same period since the general election, the Metropolitan police has lost almost 2,300 PCSOs, which is a 50% cut since 2010. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House is willing to try to secure from the Home Office a timeline for when Harrow will again have the same complement of police officers, including PCSOs, as we had back in March 2010. In particular, my constituents are concerned that there are not enough police officers in our part of Harrow. Despite the Mayor’s promises, there does not yet appear to be any sense of when we will get back to the numbers we once had.
The last issue I want to raise relates to one of the responsibilities of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I take this opportunity to congratulate the new Secretary of State, who also has responsibility for equality, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), on his appointment. I hope that he will take a particular interest in the implementation of section 27 of the Communications Act 2003, and the extent to which Ofcom is meeting its responsibilities for promoting equality of opportunity among those employed by providers of television and radio services.
One of Ofcom’s predecessors, the Independent Television Commission, required those it licensed to carry out equality monitoring. The ITC published data in tables every year, along with a critique and any other action that companies were taking on equality. However, Ofcom no longer publishes any such data. Although it has a duty to encourage equality of opportunity in the arts, it is not using the key available tool—public scrutiny—to encourage improvement. Indeed, Ofcom has resisted—sadly, successfully—freedom of information requests to release the data.
The House should be concerned, because surely our TV programmes and the organisations funded by Arts Council England should, in relation to those they employ on screen and on stage, reflect the very diverse nature of the communities that many hon. Members represent. I have received a number of representations from communities and from actors from particular ethnic minority backgrounds, who do not feel that they receive appropriate coverage or access to key media, particularly TV and theatre. For example, I rarely see Tamil actors and actresses on our TV screens, which is disappointing given the size of the Tamil community, particularly in my constituency. British east Asians are the third largest minority ethnic group in Britain today, but that is simply not reflected on our screens and stages.
To provide more evidence of that point, in nearly 30 years, “EastEnders” has had only one regular east Asian character, a young female DVD seller who lasted just six months. Given that the east end of London remains one of our most ethnically diverse areas, it is a little odd that Albert square has not had so much as even the proverbial cliché of a Chinese takeaway. “Coronation Street” also has a disappointing record. It waited until 2011 before it had an east Asian character, who lasted just four months. Hospital dramas such as “Casualty”, “Doctors” and “Holby City” are similarly disappointing. Given the number of east Asians working in our hospitals, including in senior roles, that is somewhat at odds with the reality of the very diverse work force in the NHS. Actors have told me that they worry that any east Asian actor who is unable or unwilling to embody a stereotype will simply be unable to build any kind of career, given the lack of opportunity to play appropriate and non-stereotypical roles.
Figures suggest that the number of black and ethnic minority staff in companies receiving Arts Council England funding is dropping. I therefore hope that the new Secretary of State might, in addition to all his other duties, encourage Ofcom and Arts Council England to take a greater interest in equality monitoring. I want what I watch on TV, in films and on stage to reflect the community I live in, and surely that is not an unreasonable ask. Sadly, it is now far from clear whether Ofcom is fulfilling its responsibilities under the Communications Act. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House is willing to take my plea for a little more action from Ofcom to the new Secretary of State, and to deliver a suitable response in the usual way.
Tom Brake
We have learnt two more stunning twitcher facts this afternoon. They will go down on the record, and in years to come people will read my right hon. Friend’s contribution and benefit from his expertise in bird watching.
My right hon. Friend also explained that Malta was not on his holiday list until it addressed the issue of turtledoves and the wall of lead that birds fly into as they approach that island. He then went on to the subject of the Wildlife Trusts and the campaign it is running to save grasslands as part of our natural environment—something that I am sure we would all support. He referred to the Allerton project which is a farm that operates on a commercial basis, but takes its conservation responsibilities very seriously. That best practice should perhaps be more widely promoted, and I am pleased that DEFRA is aware of it.
My right hon. Friend then talked about the modern slavery Bill, and I am sure that the Home Office will look seriously at the recommendations from the Joint Committee. I agree that modern-day slavery is an abomination. Members of Parliament all read their local papers avidly, and we can all spot the cases of modern slavery they contain, such as the brothels that have been closed down or the cannabis farms that can be found in all sorts of places, including neat, tidy and relatively affluent suburbs such as Sutton, Carshalton and Wallington. Cannabis farms are regularly found in houses, empty warehouses and empty blocks of flats. My right hon. Friend referred to early-day motion 1257. He does not normally support early-day motions, but this one was to celebrate the 175th anniversary of Anti- Slavery International, and we join him in congratulating that organisation on its anniversary.
My right hon. Friend also mentioned his central library and the investment that has gone into it. He said that he was not being partisan in saying that the London borough of Hillingdon was brilliant in terms of its library provision, and I am not being partisan when I say the same about the London borough of Sutton, where we have also succeeded in investing in libraries, especially those that work jointly with sports centres and so on to maximise footfall and other benefits.
My right hon. Friend plugged Northern Ireland as a holiday destination, and I agree with him that it is a place that everyone should visit. Great steps forward have been taken since the Good Friday agreement, but some significant issues still need to be addressed. We are all very pleased that he got a bat detector for Christmas. I hope he makes good use of it.
The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) also mentioned the Wildlife Trusts and praised its work. He touched on residents’ associations. We all have effective residents’ associations working hard in our constituencies. In my case, they are fighting against a proposal for a very large McDonald’s on Stafford road. He referred to RAF Northolt, wanting to ensure that any consultation, for example on plans to increase the number of flights, goes beyond just Hillingdon council. I will pass on his concerns to the Ministry of Defence to ensure that perhaps a wider consultation is embarked upon.
The hon. Gentleman referred to underrepresentation of black and minority ethnic people in the media. The Government are committed to black and minority ethnic diversity in TV, film and the arts, both on and off screen. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) recently met leading figures from these sectors to consider options to improve representation. I think we all support the idea that people who appear on our screens or on our airwaves should be fully representative of the population as a whole, and be in roles that do not stereotype.
Tom Brake
Indeed. The hon. Gentleman raised a point about monitoring data no longer being published. I cannot provide any further information, but I will, as he requests, ask the Minister to respond.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a decline in police numbers in Harrow. The independent crime survey has identified that since 2010 the level of crime has gone down by 10%. That is something we can all welcome. I note the drop in the number of officers in his borough as a result of changes that have happened in London. I have seen a similar decline in the number of officers in Sutton. My concern is that people need the reassurance of police visibility. As a result of these changes, there is concern that the deterrent effect is not what it used to be. His concerns are on the record. The Mayor of London may wish, if he is following this debate, to respond directly to him on that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) had the novel proposal, which I think we all wish we had thought of ourselves, of redirecting the Tour de France through every single road in his constituency, or at least the ones that are the responsibility of Essex county council, to ensure that all the potholes are filled in. I commend him for his initiative. He clearly has strong views on his county council and has used this debate to put them on the record. On the subject of potholes, he will be pleased to hear that in this financial year the Department for Transport is providing more than £1 billion to local authorities for local highways maintenance, which includes tackling potholes. There was, of course, £200 million announced by the Chancellor in the Budget for pothole repairs. I hope he welcomes the activity on this front. He also referred to an exchange on quarterly meetings of Essex MPs. I would hope that any local authority seeking to work with its Members of Parliament would not choose to do so in a way that gives favour to one party over another. I hope it takes note of this debate.
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) referred to the Co-op Group, which, as she knows, is going through a difficult time. The resignation of Lord Myners from the board after some directors criticised his review of the group’s structure has created further instability, and the group is now facing losses of up to £2 billion. There is clearly a need for action, and she did a very good job of specifying the action that she considered appropriate. I am sure that the members of the Co-op Group will read carefully what she had to say. They clearly need to put their house in order—something that only they can do—and I agree with her that a period of calm reflection, building trust and confidence is required. I also agree with her that if we were to lose the Co-op, we would lose some of the richness and variety from which we currently benefit.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said that he felt that there was unintended bias on the part of the BBC. I suspect that, whatever coverage it had or had not given to Nelson Mandela, there would have been an issue: the coverage would have been too little for some, or too much for others. I am not sure that the BBC could ever have got everyone on board. What the hon. Gentleman certainly did, however, was reinforce the point that his constituency is key and should not be neglected at the expense of any other constituency in the country, especially given that it was so badly affected by a tidal surge. He drew attention—perhaps with some justification—to the difference between the coverage of the floods that hit the south and the coverage of those that hit the north.
The hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) concentrated on the extractive industries transparency initiative, which the Government fully support. He praised the work that the Department for International Development is doing. I agree with him that the fact that the United Kingdom is the only large industrialised nation that is contributing 0.7% of its GDP to overseas aid gives us significant clout in discussions on these matters, and that much of our investment in developing countries benefits the UK as well. That cannot be stressed too often. The Government certainly would not want any actions involving the extractive industries to reduce investment in developing countries, because that investment, and growth in those countries, can make a far bigger contribution to their development than even the significant level of financial aid that comes from countries such as the UK. If the transparency initiative comes to fruition in three years’ time—as the hon. Gentleman and I hope it will—we shall be able to learn a great deal from it about best practice which could be applied to other industries.
I think we would all agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) that Parliament should be made more relevant to people’s needs. I do not necessarily agree with some of the solutions he suggested, but I would certainly welcome a debate on the subject. One of the issues that we must address is the under-representation of different communities and women in the House. If we want Parliament to be more relevant to people’s needs, we must ensure that there is a better representation of people from different backgrounds and genders. He may be right in saying that open primaries could be a way of achieving that, but there are a number of other things that we can do. Many of the actions taken by the Government since 2010, such as the introduction of the Backbench Business Committee —as well as the actions taken by Select Committee Chairs to raise the profile of Select Committees and election to them—have led people to believe that Parliament represents their views slightly more effectively than it used to, and some of the polls have confirmed that. Clearly, more can be done. For instance, there is a move to ensure that we enhance the handling of petitions within the online petition system, which I think members of the public will appreciate, too. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contributions to ways in which we can ensure that Parliament reflects people’s needs or is more relevant to them. I am not going to comment on whether there are too many Ministers in the Government, although I point out that in my case I am a Minister but at least I am not paid, so there is no impact on the payroll.
The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) raised the issue of rail freight, which he campaigns on vigorously. He set out a scheme that is being put forward by the GB freight group at a minimal cost, he said, of £6 billion, which would enable freight to go from Glasgow to the channel tunnel and beyond to Beijing, which would be quite a journey. We would need to take lots of sandwiches and many flasks of tea to get from Glasgow to Beijing on that freight train, but that would certainly open up new markets to freight. I will pass on his interest in that scheme to the Department for Transport. He said Ministers in past Governments and, indeed, the current Government were supportive but he felt the blockage may be elsewhere.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) raised the issue of housing. It was also mentioned by a number of other Members. I would like to put on record some of the progress we have made. Almost 420,000 homes have been built since April 2010. The new housing construction output is now at its highest level since the crash in 2008 and housing starts are at the highest level since 2007 as well. We are therefore making progress. We believe that by the end of this Government we will have more affordable homes than there were at the start of the Government, something previous Governments have not achieved. We expect to deliver 165,000 new homes in three years. That will be the fastest rate of delivery in the past 20 years. I agree with him that increasing house building can address many issues beyond those of homelessness, overcrowding and employment. He also raised the issue of the impact of immigration on the housing shortage. Clearly, the UK has seen substantial inward migration. That is something the Government are now starting to tackle, and clearly immigration does have an impact on housing.
I had an interesting meeting a couple of weeks ago with an organisation called Pocket which is trying to develop, on a relatively small scale, on areas of land in London that are perhaps difficult for larger developers to use, and which would provide housing for those caught in the middle—people who will never be able to access affordable housing because of their income, but who in London at least are very unlikely to be able to afford to buy housing because of the level of house prices. That sort of initiative can make a contribution.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out that cycling is not easy in rural areas. I agree: the distances might be greater and it may be hillier and windier. Those who advocate cycling, including me, do not all argue that everyone has to cycle wherever they live and whatever distances are involved. He rightly highlighted the issue of fuel costs and the impact they can have, particularly on people in rural areas. I know colleagues from all parties—particularly those from rural areas and places like Scotland—are very concerned about that. He welcomed the measures the Government are taking to address fuel costs and I know he would like us to go further, but the Government are aware of the issue and we are doing as much as we can.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) referred to having the country’s first state-sponsored Hindu primary school in his constituency, and said that it is now going to have the first state-sponsored Hindu secondary school. I wish the schools well. He also mentioned Anmer Lodge, and expressed concerns about the scale of that development. His contribution highlighted the difficulties that any area faces when trying to address the housing issue. As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, we need to increase provision but local residents need to feel that that is being done in a way that does not present a challenge to them.
The hon. Member for Harrow East is clearly not going to be buying a season ticket for Barnet football club. Indeed, he probably would not be given one if he asked. Many Members will have football clubs in residential areas of their constituencies, and they can have a significant impact. I do not know whether that is the case in his constituency, but the problems can be exacerbated in that kind of environment. I am sure that his concerns will be listened to in the appropriate places.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital, saying that he wanted the development of that centre of excellence to happen as soon as possible. He will have noticed that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) is in her place and that she heard his speech. That subject is on her agenda, and she is aware of his concerns. He also mentioned the difficulty of getting in and out of Stanmore station because there was no lift, and I understand his reasons for wanting action to be taken on that as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) talked about a variety of issues. He mentioned the “Shaping a healthier future” programme. He and other Members will have received proposals with names that, on the face of it, sound positive but which might not be to everyone’s satisfaction, given the impact they could have on the local health service. The Department of Health, NHS England and the trusts need to take into account the medical benefits of specialisation—as happened in London, for example, in relation to stroke services—as well as the possible disbenefit that can derive from a lack of access to local services. The right balance needs to be struck.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to his campaign to oppose a third runway at Heathrow. As the Liberal Democrats’ party spokesman on aviation back in 1997, I confirmed at the time that our policy was to oppose a third runway, and we have not deviated from that position since then. On housing, he referred to the refusal to respond to freedom of information requests relating to a wide range of issues. It is incumbent on all local authorities, and the Government, to be as open and helpful as possible in relation to FOI requests.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) has apologised for leaving the debate early. I understand that he had to catch a train. He referred to the need to take action in relation to the missing link between the M4 and the M5. He also rightly concentrated on the importance of regenerating the city of Gloucester and the Greater Blackfriars area. From his description, the area certainly sounds ripe for investment and will provide an opportunity to deliver a vision for the city.
Members will be pleased to hear that I have nearly finished. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) referred to the need for a maritime patrol aircraft. He explained some of the technical advantages of being able to see not only what was on the surface but also what was below it. That is an invaluable asset when dealing with submarines. He also said that we needed to work in partnership with our allies. That is something that I welcome, although there could be times when it is difficult to achieve. He will know that defence procurement is an area in which the Government have had to take action to address significant overruns. However, he could not have put his request for the maritime patrol aircraft more clearly, and I will ensure that those in the Ministry of Defence see his speech and respond to him on that point.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am on to my last note, which says “Thank you” at the top, so thank you for chairing this debate so ably. I thank also all Members who have taken part in what has been a fairly comprehensive tour, from butterflies on the A4 to the Maldives. I conclude by thanking my officials who have worked in supporting me today, and the House authorities for keeping us safe. I hope everyone has an absolutely fantastic Easter.
Business of the House
Gareth Thomas Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is the very person, in the sense of having recently had a debate on bingo duty. I congratulate my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend will be aware that the House of Lords is completing consideration of the Water Bill, and the future of abstraction reform may well arise on consideration of Lords amendments on that Bill.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Leader of the House look into the case of my constituent Gordon Mansbridge, who is 90 and has terminal cancer. He flew some 33 Wellington bomber missions from an Italian airbase during the second world war. Sir John Holmes is investigating the possibility of recognition in the form of a medal clasp, but that review is not likely to be completed until the end of the year. Given the circumstances of my constituent, might the right hon. Gentleman explore with the Ministry of Defence whether that could be speeded up?
Mr Lansley
I will of course do that. I am pleased to be able to help the hon. Gentleman in relation to his constituent. In recent years, like many hon. Members, I have appreciated the recognition, through the Bomber Command medal and the Bomber Command memorial here in London, and in other ways, of the courage displayed by those who were part of Bomber Command in the second world war.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Gareth Thomas Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jenkin
I have moved new clause 1, but I shall wait to hear what the Minister says in response to the debate. I suspect that I will be greatly reassured by what he says in respect of parliamentary privilege, and that by removing any reference to the Bill of Rights or any wording thereof, the two Government amendments put this Bill back in the normal category of all Bills, that privilege applies and that the unstated presence of the 1689 Bill of Rights looms over this Bill as it does over any Act and our privileges are therefore secure, there is no ambiguity about that and it is accepted by the courts.
Indeed, I do not expect that the courts wish to be drawn into adjudicating on detailed matters of privilege. It remains uncomfortable and untidy that hon. Members might try to avail themselves of parliamentary privilege when they are not entitled to it and we end up with embarrassing court actions, but that is not an excuse for legislation in this area. The courts have demonstrated, as we saw in the Chaytor case, that they are capable of disposing of those cases in a manner that we would find perfectly acceptable.
Echoing the comments of my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), I still have concerns about the implications of the Bill. These measures were drawn up, presumably, to protect Members of Parliament. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 states:
“A Member of Parliament who makes communications within section 2(3) on behalf of a person or persons resident in his or her constituency does not, by reason of those communications, carry on the business of consultant lobbying.”
How have we written a Bill that could possibly construe Members of Parliament going about their ordinary course of business as carrying out consultant lobbying? Yes, we are paid by Parliament and therefore we are paid, and yes, we are paid, in part, to represent our constituents, but is it assumed that any court might by accident include us in the definition of lobbying and therefore require us to register as lobbyists in order to represent our constituents?
I am pleased that that is being taken out because it was absurd to confine the exemption merely to representing residents in our constituencies, as defined by section 4 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. If I were representing a 15-year-old, I would be caught by the Act. It was an absurd piece of drafting. Why was it necessary to put it into the Bill? I hope the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that the Government are taking it out of the Bill now. That is the right thing to do.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely interesting speech, which thus far has touched on issues surrounding Members of this House. Has he given any thought to the possible implications of the Bill as originally drafted, and as it will be without the offending paragraphs if the Government carry the House, for Members of the other place?
Mr Jenkin
I note the earlier debate on the guillotine. All I can say is thank God for the other place. The hon. Gentleman raises a point that Members there may want to address, though if the Minister can give us the assurance that we need that he has complete confidence and has had advice that no court could possibly construe a Member of Parliament as a lobbyist, I imagine that would also apply to a Member of the other place. But the hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly valid point.
The point, of course, is that we are paid by Parliament to serve the national interest, and to exercise our independent judgment on behalf of that interest, to represent our constituents and to play our part in proceedings as members of political parties, because without parties democracy would not function. Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that all the normal dealings of a Member of Parliament, whether or not he or she is paid or sponsored by outside interests in the usual legitimate way, will not fall within the scope of the Bill and that we will not be required to register as lobbyists? It is important that he gives that assurance so that the courts are clear that that was the intention of the Act.
Mr Thomas
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who made an extremely interesting speech to which I listened carefully. Like him, I am encouraged by the Government’s decision to table the amendments deleting the two offending paragraphs to schedule 1. We tabled amendment 78 as a probing amendment, but I do not intend to move it if the Leader of the House is suitably convincing when he comments on Government amendments 28 and 29. Nevertheless, there is a series of questions that merit asking about how we got to this point and whether the amendments will resolve all the concerns.
I will deal first with some of the context of these discussions. Until the Government tabled their amendments, it appeared that they were determined to write into legislation a set of paragraphs that would have meant more Members of Parliament being affected by the Bill than actual lobbyists being registered under it. Lynton Crosby and all those in-house energy company lobbyists to whom the Government listen will not have to register because the Bill is still so badly drafted, but Members of Parliament raising concerns, perhaps on behalf of people under the age of 18 or asylum seekers fleeing torture who are resident in their constituencies, might have had to register.
Mr Redwood
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very important that a shadow spokesman should be able to represent any interest group, company or activity in the country as they see fit and still receive their parliamentary salary without falling foul of the lobbying rules?
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention so quickly. Will he add to his list the peculiar situation we have in Northern Ireland, where there are five absentee Sinn Fein Members? MPs who do take their seats receive communications from those five constituencies asking us to make representations to various Ministers. I would hate to be labelled a consultant lobbyist simply for acting properly on behalf of constituents who are not represented in this House by a sitting MP.
Mr Jenkin
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has made an extremely valuable point. It shows how narrow a view some of the people who draft this legislation have of what Members of Parliament actually do. They think that we are simply a post box for our constituents. They do not understand that we are meant to exercise our judgment and represent interests from outside our constituencies as well as views and opinions, and indeed the national interest. They have no conception of that, which I am afraid is reflected in the Bill’s original drafting.
Paul Flynn
May I raise with my hon. Friend a question that he himself has raised? There is a difference between this House and the other House. There was a recent investigation into the conduct of a Member of the House of Lords who was behaving in a way that would be condemned in this place as reprehensible, but the Lords have not come to a final conclusion. It relates to a Lord who was campaigning and lobbying on behalf of the Cayman Islands. The excuse given was that there is a difference between the two Houses because Members of the House of Lords are not paid and so are entitled to go around making money by hiring themselves out to the highest bidder. Surely that is a matter of public scandal that must be addressed.
Mr Thomas
If my hon. Friend, who is an expert on these questions, will bear with me, I will come later to some of the issues relating to the House of Lords and the extent to which the Bill affects the performance of its Members.
I accept that it was probably not the intention of the Leader of the House that Members of Parliament should be affected in the way that I and other Members who have intervened have described and that that was a result of the Bill being so badly rushed. Had Members on both sides of the House not raised concerns, these sensible amendments would not have been put forward by the Government.
As I indicated, I want to ask a couple of questions about the impact of the Government’s amendments and whether any lessons have been learnt from the process by which the offending paragraphs ended up in the Bill. As several Members made clear on Second Reading, and as the standards committee spelled out, there was a series of concerns about the inclusion of paragraphs 1 and 2 to schedule 1 and their impact on parliamentary privilege. The Committee’s helpful report noted the evidence that had been received by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in March this year. The evidence from Lord Judge underlined the risk of including specific exemptions for MPs in this, or indeed any, Bill. It also underlined the concern that future legislation relating to Members without such an exemption might inadvertently affect parliamentary privilege.
Did the Leader of the House consider that report from the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, and if not, why not? Did he take any advice on the inclusion of those paragraphs before signing them off and presenting the Bill to Parliament? Does he now accept that pre-legislative scrutiny, and perhaps a further period of public consultation with the industry and its stakeholders, might have prevented such a considerable error?
A further concern the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege highlighted relates to the inclusion of a definition of who is resident in an MP’s constituency using the 1983 Act’s description of who can and cannot vote.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
At least eight or nine major charities are headquartered in my constituency. Does he believe that I would be prevented from representing their interests because they, as corporate bodies, are not resident? How does he see that affecting my ability to represent those charitable interests?
Mr Thomas
I think that I did the hon. Gentleman an enormous service back in the 2005 general election, but I am happy to try to be of service to him now. He has rightly raised a concern about whether he would have been able to do the job he wants to do on behalf of those charities had the Government not finally brought forward their amendments.
Mrs Gillan
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has been very generous in giving way. I have taken a great interest in autism and introduced a private member’s Bill that ultimately became an Act. I worked with the National Autism Society, which provided me with back-up, information and material for distribution among colleagues. I worry that the Bill would inhibit any MP in acting that way. I was acting not on behalf of a constituent but on behalf of the cause, and will continue to do so. I want to make sure that nothing stands in the way of that work of an MP.
Mr Thomas
I commend the hon. Lady for her work with the National Autism Society, not least because it does an excellent job but also because a former member of my staff works for it. Whether her work with the National Autism Society would have been called into question by the Bill is an extremely pertinent point. It is a worry that Ministers rushed out the Bill, and it appears—this is why I have asked the question of the Leader of the House—that not very much advice was taken from the House authorities before the Bill was published. As a result, considerable concerns have been raised by Members on both sides of the House, detracting inevitably from the House’s ability to look at other parts of the Bill.
Will the Leader of the House set out with whom he, his ministerial colleagues or others involved in drafting the Bill consulted before inserting the offending paragraphs? I ask because it has not always been easy to track which Minister and which Department was leading on this Bill and it would be useful to know whether the Leader of the House has considered whether a repeat of the error might be avoided in the future. I emphasise gently to the Leader of the House that the mistake might have been avoided had there been pre-legislative scrutiny, a further period of public consultation and a proper attempt to involve the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in particular.
I turn now to a question that I raised in an intervention on the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex: the impact of the Bill on the other place. As the Bill is currently drafted, a Member of Parliament’s pay could also be construed—a point the right hon. Member for Wokingham made—as payment for third-party consultant lobbying. In the other place, peers are given an allowance and are not paid a salary. There is an expectation that those in the other place can earn a living beyond their work there. The House of Lords code of conduct is currently being reviewed by a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. It would be helpful to get a specific assurance from the Leader of the House, or his colleague the Deputy Leader, on the extent to which, if at all, the Bill as drafted, and as it would be if the Government amendments were carried, would affect the other place. These are clearly questions that members in the other place will want to explore, quite rightly. But we also have a responsibility to think through some of the issues around the other place. It would be helpful to hear from the Leader of the House on the extent to which he has considered this question.
Mr Lansley
Yes, I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. She would not be affected by the Bill as she would be behaving as a Member of Parliament and not engaging in the course of a business. The payment she receives as a Member of Parliament is not regarded as payment for these purposes, and she can undertake all her normal activities. The same is true for the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, because shadow Ministers and Members may raise any issues they wish. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) can represent not only her constituents but anybody she likes in her responsibilities as a Member of Parliament, and is in no way constrained from doing so.
Mr Thomas
The Leader of the House has been at his most reasonable in the past few minutes, but he has not yet touched on how we ended up in this position. I asked whether he would set out who was consulted—were the House authorities consulted before the Bill was published? I asked, and I gently ask again, whether he would accept that one lesson of this episode and this Bill might be that pre-legislative scrutiny would have been helpful?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman knows from our previous conversation that we talked to the House authorities about parliamentary privilege. The implication of what he says is that the Bill was in a sense deficient because Members of Parliament were caught, but they were not. In the original Bill, Members of Parliament were exempt by virtue of the fact that they were engaged in a public duty as office holders, not in the course of a business. To that extent, we included provisions intended to give additional reassurance, but that simply muddied the waters and it was simpler to do it in the way that we, together with the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, accepted. We accepted an amendment in Committee, and all I am doing today—I hope—is making it clear that the combination of those amendments in Committee and the amendments now being considered respects the views of the Standards and Privileges Committee and protects the rights of this House in relation to privilege. It also entirely protects the position of Members of Parliament who are undertaking their duties, however they construe them. On that basis, I hope Members will support Government amendments 28 and 29.
Mr Jenkin
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for being utterly clear about the intention of this Bill, which is that Members of Parliament and Members of the other place are not intended to be included in the provisions of the Bill. He has listened and read the report from the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and the Standards and Privileges Committee of this House, and has understood the concerns raised. I emphasise the importance of removing the second paragraph in schedule 1, subject to amendment 29, because were it to remain it would have the effect of narrowing the exemption to an absurd degree. That is why it is important to remove it; it is not only redundant but would be highly damaging because it would suggest that what is not excluded by the clause would implicitly be included under the Bill. I will not press new clause 1 to a vote, because the Leader of the House is dealing with these matters in an exemplary manner, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Duty to apply a code of conduct
‘(1) The Registrar shall, after wide consultation with relevant stakeholders including the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee, prepare a code of conduct with which all registered persons will be required to comply, and may produce revised codes from time to time.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay any professional lobbying code of conduct before Parliament.
(3) Any code shall provide that any inappropriate financial relations between registered persons and Parliamentarians are strictly forbidden.
(4) An organisation or person included on the register which contravenes the provisions of the code of conduct shall be liable to civil penalties as set out in section 14.’.—(Mr Thomas.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 6—Duty to report—
‘The Registrar will report annually to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons on the operation of the Register.’.
Amendment 84, page 54, line 15, after ‘satisfied’, insert ‘after consultation with the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons’.
Government amendment 31.
Amendment 85, page 3, line 7, leave out from ‘business’ to end of line 8.
Amendment 86, page 3, line 15, at end insert—
‘(h) the name of the employer and the address of employer‘s business; and
(i) the names of members of staff employed by the person registered.’.
Government amendments 17 and 18.
Amendment 87, page 3, line 21, at end insert—
‘(c) the approximate value of the registered person’s spending on their lobbying activities for each quarter.’.
Government amendments 19 and 20.
Amendment 89, page 3, line 37, after ‘client information’, insert ‘and spending on lobbying’.
Government amendments 21 and 22.
Amendment 100, page 3, line 47, at end add—
‘(c) if the registered person engaged in lobbying in the quarter in return for payment (whether or not the payment has been received), the purpose and subject matter of the lobbying services provided by the registered person; and
(d) if the registered person received payment in the quarter to engage in lobbying (whether or not the lobbying has been done) the purpose and subject matter of the lobbying services provided by the registered person.’.
Amendment 90, page 4, line 7, at end insert—
‘(7) Spending on lobbying for each quarter is the approximate value of the amount a registered person spends on their lobbying activity for each quarter.’.
Government amendments 23 and 24.
Amendment 92, page 4, line 40, after ‘appropriate’, insert ‘including in written form’.
Amendment 93, page 5, line 26, leave out Clause 10.
Government amendment 25.
Amendment 94, page 6, line 28, after ‘incomplete’, insert ‘or misleading’.
Amendment 95, page 6, line 36, after ‘incomplete’, insert ‘or misleading’.
Amendment 96, page 6, line 42, after ‘incomplete’, insert ‘or misleading’.
Government amendments 26 and 27.
Mr Thomas
Reasonable though the Leader of the House was about the previous set of amendments, he will have to reach unprecedented oratorical heights for the Opposition not to press new clause 4 to a vote. The new clause seeks to establish a code of conduct that would help establish standards of behaviour for consultant lobbyists. Such codes exist already in a number of other countries that have tough lobbying regulations—Canada and Australia, for example, both have codes of conduct to which registered lobbyists must adhere. Indeed, this House’s Political and Constitutional Reform Committee also recommended a statutory code of conduct.
There was some debate in Committee about the elements of a possible code of conduct, and that point bears dwelling on and expanding a little. Surely, top of the list of standards in a code of conduct should be the requirement that lobbyists and their clients tell the truth to those they meet. Another element that might be worthy of inclusion in the code is that lobbyists must be open about who their clients are. Members of the House, Ministers and permanent secretaries are entitled to know who is lobbying them and for what purpose. Surely there should be a requirement that lobbyists advise their clients if they are about to commit illegal or unethical acts.
It is not clear to Labour Members—and, I suspect, to other Members—why Ministers do not want such basic principles of good behaviour enshrined in a code of conduct. In Committee, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), suggested:
“The experience of regulators in other jurisdictions clearly shows that statutory codes of conduct for lobbying can be unworkable and unenforceable.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 786.]
Sadly, she did not feel able to give the Committee any more information than that bald statement. If it remains the Government’s position that they do not support a code of conduct, it would be helpful for the House, those in the other place and those who watch our proceedings if they set out clearly the international examples that led them to the conclusion that statutory codes of conduct are unworkable and unenforceable.
If there is no code of conduct, we will be in the rather odd position in which the registrar can punish lateness in providing or submitting information, but cannot punish lobbyists who deliberately hide who they are working for from those they are lobbying. Before being drawn up, a code of conduct would need to be properly consulted on with all relevant stakeholders, including the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I accept there are already a number of voluntary codes of conduct in the lobbying industry, some of which are extremely comprehensive. Sadly, however, not every lobbyist is a member of one or other of those voluntary codes.
Gavin Devine, chief executive of MHP Communications, one of the bigger lobbying firms, noted there is a risk that simply securing a place on the register might enable lobbyists to imply they had a kitemark or some sort of endorsement, without having to operate to particular standards. Other evidence presented to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee suggested there might be an economic issue for some who decide to register and pay the registration fee, but do not want to pay any more for the cost of being a consultant lobbyist, and therefore would no longer be part of a voluntary code of conduct.
Surely, there is a risk that, once registered, a lobbyist will simply decide not to bother with any of the voluntary codes of conduct. On 9 September, the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) tried to argue, interestingly, that peer pressure would drive lobbyists to adhere to a voluntary code of conduct. Unfortunately, given that there are several voluntary codes across the industry, that would risk having different standards. Having one clear basic code of conduct would offer clarity about the minimum standards that lobbyists should meet, avoid confusion about which voluntary register was the best one and offer clarity to the House and the Government about the standards required of those who seek to lobby us. A code of conduct might also help to regulate those who want to lobby the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Greater London Assembly or the National Assembly for Wales, were they to be included in the code of conduct.
One voluntary code that bears looking at is that produced by the Association of Professional Political Consultants. Why do not Ministers think that its 18 elements should be standardised across the industry? Item 2 states:
“Political consultants must act with honesty towards clients and the institutions of government.”
Surely, we all want to see consultant lobbyists acting with honesty towards clients and the institutions of government. Why do the Leader of the House and his colleagues in government think that such a provision should not be written into a code of conduct and that every consultant lobbyist should have to abide by that most basic of standards?
The APPC code also states that lobbyists
“must use reasonable endeavours to satisfy themselves of the truth and accuracy of all statements made or information provided to clients or by or on behalf of clients to institutions of government.”
Again, that seeks to continue the principle of truthfulness among those who seek to lobby Parliament and the institutions of government. Why should there not be such a reasonable expectation that when we are told something, it is truthful and accurate? It is not clear, certainly among the Opposition, why Ministers think that such basic standards should not be required of all those who lobby.
The APPC code also makes it clear that those who sign it should be
“open in disclosing the identity of their clients and must not misrepresent their interests.”
Again, I ask the Leader of the House why such a basic standard for the lobbying industry should not be enshrined in a code of conduct. Why should everyone who seeks to lobby us not be required to meet that most basic of standards?
Another provision that might be included in a code is the requirement that lobbyists do not make misleading, exaggerated or extravagant claims to clients. Anyone who has followed the unfortunate publicity that some lobbyists have generated will be aware that some have made exaggerated claims for their influence on the Government or Members of Parliament. Again, a basic requirement that lobbyists should not make misleading, exaggerated or extravagant claims would surely help to protect those who use the services of the lobbying industry. Why do Ministers not think that clients should be protected from such basic bad behaviour by a would-be lobbyist and therefore have it written into a code of conduct?
Interestingly, the APPC code deals with payments and offers of entertainment and mementoes. It makes it clear that
“political consultants must not offer or give, or cause a client to offer or give, any financial or other incentive to”
somebody in government
“that could be construed in any way as a bribe or solicitation of favour”
Again, that must be a basic standard we would want all consultant lobbyists to abide by. If one shares that view, it should be written into a code of conduct, so that all consultant lobbyists have to abide by it, not just those who, in this case, choose to be members of the APPC.
Lady Hermon
The wording of new clause 4, to which the hon. Gentleman is speaking, is curious. It states:
“Any code shall provide that any inappropriate financial relations between registered persons and Parliamentarians are strictly forbidden.”
That suggests that there are inappropriate financial relations and appropriate financial relations, which I am sure is not what he meant.
Lady Hermon
To clarify, is it the Opposition’s position in the new clause that some financial relations between parliamentarians and registered consultant lobbyists are in fact appropriate? Surely, any financial relationship should be strictly forbidden. The word “inappropriate” should not be there at all.
Mr Thomas
We are seeking to establish the principle that there should be a code of conduct dealing with the relationship between Members of Parliament and the industry and covering a whole series of other questions. I hope that the hon. Lady will be persuaded of the need for such a code of conduct. I accept that consultation on the detail would be required, but if we could persuade her and the whole House to join us in the Lobby to support new clause 4, and if it were carried, I would hope she wanted to respond to such a consultation.
Lady Hermon
I am so sorry to be persistent, but I am even more confused than when I made my first intervention on this point. I am wildly enthusiastic about having a code and am willing to support the principle, but I cannot support the wording in the new clause. I would like the hon. Gentleman to explain what could possibly be an appropriate financial relationship between a registered lobbyist and a parliamentarian. No financial relationship is appropriate, so my problem is with the word “inappropriate”. Will he address that point, please?
Mr Thomas
The hon. Lady is right that it is very difficult to see how any direct financial relationship could be appropriate. I come back to a particular provision in the APPC code that might shed some light on this issue. The provision makes it clear that in relation to entertainment, for example, or to token mementos, no incentive should be given. It might be possible to suggest that such circumstances involve a financial incentive, but my point is that we need a code of conduct and we need clear details of what should be in it. I hope that that explanation will persuade the hon. Lady to support our proposal for a basic code of conduct, and that she will be able to play a role in being consulted on the details.
New clause 6 would place a duty on the registrar to report to Parliament annually on the operation of the register. The Information Commissioner has a similar duty under the Data Protection Act 1998. At the moment, the Bill implies little accountability to Parliament by the registrar. Given the registrar’s powers to impose civil penalties, to issue guidance and to make financial decisions, some accountability ought surely to be provided for in law. Let us remember when, all those long days ago, Government Members supported the signing of the coalition agreement. Page 21 of that document contained a commitment to strengthen the powers of Select Committees to scrutinise major public appointments. Surely new clause 6 follows the spirit of that provision. Indeed, even the Liberal Democrat manifesto promised to increase parliamentary scrutiny of Government appointments. New clause 6 would allow just that.
Even at this late stage—if not today and tomorrow, then in the other place—we hope that the Bill can be made more effective and, crucially, more wide ranging in regard to the number of lobbyists it covers. It remains our view that it should cover all lobbyists, and that it should provide for a clear code of conduct. The registrar would have an even more important role to play if these proposals were accepted, as we hope they will be. There is therefore even more need to ensure the registrar’s accountability to Parliament.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I have followed the debate with a great deal of interest. It seems to me that the additional safeguards that the hon. Gentleman wants to put in place would be so convoluted as to create a lawyers’ nightmare. Surely it would be simpler to strengthen the guidance to Ministers and Members of Parliament than to try to enshrine all this in the Bill.
Mr Thomas
I say gently to the hon. Lady that I understand her frustration with the process, but we are trying to make the best of a bad job by the Government, and to tidy up a poorly prepared Bill. She makes a reasonable point, however. Had we had the opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny and for a further period of consultation with the industry on the details of the lobbying provisions in the Bill, we might not have needed to table amendments to try to make the Government’s proposals more workable.
Mrs Main
I have a degree of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Many of us have concerns about the Bill, but he might just be making matters worse, despite his best intentions. I do not believe that the Bill will catch the behind-the-scenes lobbying that the public are most concerned about. The emphasis should therefore be more on ensuring that Ministers and Members of Parliament act totally correctly, rather than on trying to second-guess every little nuance that a lobbyist might come up with.
Mr Thomas
I have to disagree with the hon. Lady. If we can get the rules for lobbyists right—or as right as we possibly can—at the beginning of the process, we should be able to limit the scope for problems further down the line. In tabling our amendments, we have been motivated by what has happened in other countries that have statutory codes of conduct. Our research suggests that such measures have had a positive impact in helping to make lobbying more transparent in those other jurisdictions. That is why I commend our proposals to the hon. Lady and to the House.
I suspect that, once lobbyists had got used to the new regime, they would become extremely comfortable with a code of conduct and with the other requirements that I have set out. Clearly, there would be a need for the registrar to do some educational work, but I am sure that that would be possible. I am concerned, however, that because so few lobbyists will be covered by the provisions of the Bill, the registrar might not be financially sustainable in the way Ministers hope. If that is the case, I fear that there would not be sufficient resources to do the educational work that would form part of the registrar’s public duties. I hear the hon. Lady’s reluctance, but I urge her to keep the faith and to come with us into the Lobby tonight in an effort to make a bad Bill a little bit better. [Interruption.] I think I heard her say that the Bill was rubbish, or at least saw her mouth those words. I would not use such terms, but I understand her frustration with those on her own side.
I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) speaking to amendment 100. His interesting amendment seeks to require the declaration of the purpose and subject matter of a lobbying exercise. Our amendments 86, 87, 89 and 90 would have a similar effect, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will offer his own specific analysis of the merits of his amendment.
Amendment 92 would allow the registrar to publish the register—not only on a website, but in any other form that the registrar thinks appropriate, including, I would suggest, in written form. The key here is to ensure that the register is as accessible as possible.
Amendment 93 would remove the provision that deals with privilege and self-incrimination. This is surely a somewhat archaic principle, holding that an individual cannot be compelled to provide information that would then incriminate them. I am not sure why we need this provision to be included, so the Leader of the House might like to dwell in his reply on the need for its inclusion. This is essentially a probing amendment, intended to allow the Government to set out their argument.
Amendments 94 to 96 would ensure that a lobbyist who submitted a misleading entry to the register would be committing an offence under the Bill. Again, we seek to make the register a more transparent document and an accurate source of information about who lobbyists are working for and how much they are receiving for doing so. We want the legislation to provide for clear consequences if lobbyists fail to provide the required clarity and transparency about their lobbying work. If, for example, a lobbyist’s entry were somewhat ambiguous, the registrar could, under our amendment, take steps to compel the lobbyist to be more open, clearer and more transparent about their activities. If the Leader of the House intends to oppose these amendments, I would be interested to hear his thoughts on whether misleading entries should be regarded as acceptable and on why no sanctions should be imposed on lobbyists who provide the registrar with misleading information.
I very much hope that the Government will, in the end, come round to the view that in-house lobbyists need to be brought under the scope of this legislation. A code of conduct, provided for by the principal new clause in the group, could then cover a whole series of lobbying activities and require all lobbyists to adhere to clearer standards of behaviour. Many in the lobbying industry who are practitioners of political lobbying work to high ethical standards, and they unsurprisingly support a code of conduct. It is far from clear why the Government do not support a statutory code of conduct.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to colleagues for the two speeches on this group of amendments.
Let me start with new clause 4, moved by the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). The proposed new clause would require the registrar, after consultation with stakeholders including the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, to produce a code with which all registered persons must comply or face a civil penalty. We are talking about a statutory code with a requirement for a penalty if it is not complied with. The exchanges between the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) amply illustrated that there is scant detail about what such a code would contain, so the amendments reveal that the Opposition intend to create not only a register of lobbyists but a full-blown general regulator of the industry. While the Government are seeking to shine the light of transparency on the key issues in lobbying and the impact on key decision makers, the Opposition are bent on regulating the lobbying industry as a whole. They would regulate the behaviour of the huge number of individuals and organisations that would be captured by the definition of professional lobbying that they suggested in Committee.
The Government recognise the industry’s efforts to improve lobbying practice by introducing its own codes of conduct and we are confident that that will continue. Those codes promote the ethical behaviour that is essential to the integrity and reputation of the lobbying industry. The voluntary, self-regulated codes contain laudable principles and good practice guidance, but their translation into statute is hardly sensible—nor is it feasible. The experience of regulators in other jurisdictions illustrates clearly that statutory codes of conduct for lobbying are effectively unworkable and unenforceable.
Mr Lansley
I was going to answer the point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier, so let me give him an example and then I will let him intervene.
The consequence of seeking to regulate the whole industry is that in Congress the point has been reached at which there is an 894-page manual. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously proposing that we should go down that path, having a similar relationship between the lobbying industry and this Parliament to that in Congress?
Mr Thomas
The right hon. Gentleman is now making a different point from that made by the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) in Committee. She argued that there were plenty of examples of statutory codes of conduct that were not working. The right hon. Gentleman is making a different point and I would gently suggest to him that the experience from Canada and Australia, where statutory codes of conduct exist, suggests that such codes can be made to work perfectly effectively.
Mr Lansley
I do not agree. The consequence of large-scale statutory codes is considerable expenditure.
Let us consider the simple questions to which we have no answers. The new clause states only that there should not be inappropriate financial relationships; the hon. Gentleman does not tell us what those inappropriate relationships are or explain why they are not already prohibited by instruments such as parliamentarians’ codes of conduct, which we discussed earlier, or laws on bribery and corruption. How would the provisions of the code be enforced? What resources would the registrar require to monitor and enforce compliance, particularly if seeking to enforce compliance against imprecise, vague and wide-ranging—understandably so, as far as the voluntary code is concerned—principles and prescriptions? Trying to set up such a structure of enforcement in relation to such a wide-ranging code for such a large number of people is completely unsustainable. Who would foot the bill? The bill for the measures in Canada is equivalent to £3 million and this proposal would clearly cost much more. In any case, the Canadians go about things in a different way from us. It is not a case of adopting what they do, because they do not take our approach. We set out, through the transparency of Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ diaries, to approach the issue in a completely different fashion.
We are not trying to set up a register that controls what the lobbying industry does. Our approach recognises that lobbyists have a job to do. They are engaged in a self-regulatory structure. We are not trying to introduce a bureaucratic monster to oversee all that. We are clear that the key decision makers should be transparent about who they are seeing, and that—as the Bill would now ensure—where it is not transparent, in that they are meeting someone who is representing, as it were, their own interests, where they meet consultant lobbyists, those consultant lobbyists, through the register, are required to disclose who their clients are.
I am afraid that new clause 4, and much of what we heard from those on the Labour Front Bench and from the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), suggests that either they are not clear about what problem they are trying to address or they are simply trying to create a bureaucracy. We are not in that business. They are trying to create something that the Government have been very clear we do not want to create. We believe in transparency. We do not believe in the large-scale regulation that they are pursuing.
Mr Lansley
We have already made a commitment that Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ diaries for each quarter would be published by the end of the subsequent quarter.
Mr Lansley
That brings us to some of the other amendments. We are clear that the key decision makers are the gap in terms of transparency. We want to be clear whom the key decision makers are seeing. There are plenty of amendments on that subject in the next group, so I will not answer that point. It would of course be possible to extend that to lots of other groups, but we should consider the bureaucracy that would be created by doing so, by imagining 5,000 senior civil servants all publishing their diaries.
Mr Lansley
No, I have answered that question.
Amendment 93, tabled by the Opposition, would remove clause 10. I must confess that I am still bemused. We made it quite clear in Committee that the effect of doing so would be that in response to an information notice a person would not be required to provide any self-incriminating information, including in relation to any offence committed in relation to the register itself. The amendment would entirely undermine the enforcement regime relating to the register.
The Opposition’s amendments 94, 95 and 96 would make it an offence for consultant lobbyists to report misleading information. Although the intention behind the amendments is undoubtedly sound, I do not believe that they would have a substantive effect, as in order to be misleading the information must be either inaccurate or incomplete, and that is already covered by the clause.
The Government’s amendments in this group include amendment 31, which will allow the registrar to make direct payments to staff who have been seconded to support the office holder in addition to or instead of payments being made to the Minister or other person who seconded staff to the registrar. The registrar can also make payments to Ministers or other persons who supply accommodation or other services to the registrar under the general provision to make arrangements set out in paragraph 8(1)(b) of schedule 2.
Clause 4(3) outlines the client information that should be included in each register entry. Amendment 17 clarifies that if the registered consultant lobbyist has not engaged in lobbying or been paid to engage in lobbying during that quarter, its register entry for that quarter will contain a statement to that effect, as set out in clause 5(5), in lieu of any client information.
Amendments 18 and 19 will ensure the clarity and consistency of references to the periods for which consultant lobbyists are obliged to provide information. In the existing Bill, the three-month period prior to their initial registration about which consultant lobbyists must provide information in their register entry is called the “relevant pre-registration period”. This amendment changes the references to that phrase in clause 4 to the phrase “pre-registration quarter”, reflecting the references to the quarters for which client information is required after registration and ensuring consistency across the Bill. I hope that is clear.
Amendment 20 will ensure that the parameters of the pre-registration quarter are unambiguously defined as the three months ending on the date on which the person applies to be registered. The amendment changes the definition of the relevant pre-registration quarter period from the period of three months preceding the application date to the period of three months ending on the application date.
Amendments 21 and 22 will make it clear that register entries must include the names of the person or persons on whose behalf lobbying is undertaken, reflecting the reality that consultant lobbyists are likely to be engaged by more than one person during a quarter, and ensures consistency across the provisions of the Bill.
Amendment 23 clarifies the registrar's duty to update the register in accordance with the information returns submitted by consultant lobbyists by removing the unnecessary reference to “receiving the information return” which is covered in the following sub-paragraph.
Amendment 24 makes clear the separation of what the registrar is required to do, and what it may do. The registrar must publish the register in accordance with requirements set out in section 6. The registrar may also publish entries in respect of persons who were but are no longer entered in the register, but this is not a subset of its requirements under section 6.
Amendment 25 makes it clear that it is an offence for a “registered” person to carry on the business of consultant lobbying if they have submitted incomplete information to the registrar. This puts beyond any shadow of a doubt the class of person that is caught by this provision.
Amendment 26 will clarify that a person guilty of an offence relating to the register is liable to a fine, whether they are summarily convicted or are convicted on indictment. If convicted in a Crown court, the fine will be unlimited. If convicted in a magistrates court in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the fine will not exceed the statutory maximum. If convicted in a magistrates court in England or Wales before the coming into force of section 85 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the fine will not exceed the statutory maximum; if convicted after the coming into force of that Act, which removes the statutory maximum in England and Wales, the fine will be unlimited.
Amendment 27 further clarifies that an appeal against an information notice or the notice or imposition of a penalty can be heard either by the first tier tribunal or, if so determined by or under the tribunal procedure rules, the upper tribunal.
When the time comes, I would welcome the opportunity to move the Government amendments standing in my name.
Mr Thomas
We have had a very good debate on these amendments but, sadly, what has become clear is that whenever meaningful transparency has been suggested, the Leader of the House has cited the danger of a huge level of bureaucracy as the reason real transparency cannot be achieved. This Bill is badly titled; instead of the Transparency of Lobbying Bill, it would be better and more accurate to describe it as a little bit of transparency on a little bit of lobbying Bill.
The Leader of the House did not revert to the attempt made by the former Minister, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who suggested that there were plenty of examples of countries around the world that had statutory codes of conduct that suggested that such codes were unworkable. The one effort that the right hon. Gentleman made was to cite the American political system as being a reason that a statutory code of conduct would not work here. Not even the scale of incompetence that the coalition parties are managing to achieve in government comes close to the scale of dysfunctionality in the American political system at the moment. It is not a meaningful comparison to cite the American code of conduct; more sensible would have been to point to the examples of Australia and Canada, as I sought to do. Experience there does show that a statutory code of conduct can be made workable and enforceable, and could help to achieve the objective of delivering real transparency when lobbyists meet Ministers and indeed members of the House of Commons. A clear, basic code of conduct would avoid confusion over which voluntary register was the best one. It would offer clarity to the House and, indeed, to those in Government about the standards expected and required by those lobbying. I urge the Government to accept, even at this late stage, the benefit of having a code of conduct, even for the tiny number of lobbyists their Bill will cover.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), in a very well-judged speech, highlighted the number of loopholes that exist in the Bill. He cited the balance of evidence presented to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, suggesting that further information should be included in the register, including the scale of financial information, the subject matter of the lobbying, and the purpose of the lobbying activity. He noted that representations for that additional information had come to the Committee from a range of organisations as diverse as Spinwatch all the way through to the Royal College of Nursing.
Our amendments sought to inject that greater level of information and transparency into the process. I deeply regret that even at this late stage Ministers are not willing to consider even their own versions of the amendments. I therefore seek the opportunity to press the new clause to a vote and urge all Members of the House to support it.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Gareth Thomas Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise with some sadness to urge the House to reject the programme motion that has just been moved by the Deputy Leader of the House. I do so not because programmes are often inappropriate. When filibustering takes place, as often happens on a Friday, usually led by Conservative Members who sit at the very back opposite, meaningful debate often does not take place, so one can clearly see the case for having a programme motion. It would be fair to say that programme motions can often help to ensure that all topics are covered when a Bill is in Committee. In this case, however, much of the Bill has not been scrutinised in the way that the Deputy Leader of the House tried to suggest that it had been. Given how little time is set out in the programme motion, it is unlikely that we will be able to carry out line-by-line scrutiny.
Sadly, all this continues to be a bit of blot on the record of the Leader of the House and, indeed, his Liberal Democrat colleague, because they did not see the need for proper consultation with the third sector before the Bill was brought in. I accept that there was some consultation on what might be in the lobbying provisions, but there was certainly no pre-legislative scrutiny of either of the first two parts of the Bill. A proper amount of parliamentary scrutiny could have begun to have put this at least partly right. As regards part 3, the whole House is aware that the Government do not like anyone belonging to a trade union or standing up for themselves as work, so the lack of consultation over this part is hardly surprising. It is nevertheless still very disappointing.
What we have, then, is a Bill that is being rushed through Parliament. It has attracted huge concern from across the third sector about the chilling impact it will have on the perfectly legitimate campaigning activities of charities, so detailed line-by-line consideration could have begun to make up for that lack of consultation with charities before the Bill was published.
Indeed, consideration has been further delayed today by two major statements. Of course we would all have wanted those statements to be made, but as a result of them, unless the programme motion is resisted, the House will have even less time in which to consider the legitimate concerns put to many of us about part 1, let alone parts 2 and 3. If the Bill had been debated upstairs, it would have been far less disrupted by urgent business in this Chamber and more comprehensive scrutiny might—I say “might”—have been achieved.
What have we had so far? We have had one day for Second Reading, just three days for Committee and now just two for Report. Virtually every other piece of Government legislation will get more scrutiny than this Bill. I remember charities legislation during the last Session—a small Treasury Bill to amend gift aid provisions, yet that Bill was in Committee for two whole weeks, as well as having a full day for Second Reading and Report.
Most of the lobbying industry and its stakeholders think this Bill is little more than the emperor’s new clothes for the industry. It amounts thus far to a pretence of action: when so few will be covered, the damaging lack of transparency that exists in the industry at the moment will remain even after this Bill, as drafted, goes through. It is thus difficult to see how we will have time over the next two days to do justice to the concerns that have been put to hon. Members—on the Government side as well as on our side. I therefore urge the House to reject the motion and I encourage the Government to allocate more time for debate.
Summer Adjournment
Gareth Thomas Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
When I applied to speak in this debate, I was not aware that I would secure a meeting, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), with the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson). I therefore intend to be conciliatory in speaking about what has happened to Coventry City football club.
Many people will be aware of the long-running dispute between Coventry City football club and the owners of the stadium in Coventry, the Ricoh arena. We had a debate earlier this year on the matter so we need not go into the details of the dispute again. I also raised the matter earlier during Question Time.
The situation has developed and matters have come to a head. Coventry City FC is now due to play its home games at the Sixfields stadium in Northampton. Neither I nor the people of Coventry have anything against Northampton and I am sure that it is an excellent stadium. However, the fans will have to make the round trip at great expense, which will be beyond many of them financially. Coventry has been the home of the club since it was founded and I am sure that Members can imagine the great disappointment among Coventry fans and residents that the club is having to leave its home city.
I want to make three points. First, I understand that all sides in the dispute are having a good deal of difficulty in having productive negotiations. I do not wish to go into the reasons why that might be. However, I believe that it is vital to bring all sides of the dispute to the negotiating table. A compromise arrangement can still be thrashed out that would enable the club to continue playing at the Ricoh arena. I am only asking for a temporary solution to be found until a long-term solution can be reached. I call on all the parties involved to put aside their grievances and work constructively together to see whether an interim agreement can be reached.
I believe that the sports Minister is well placed to mediate in the dispute and I have called on him to do so. Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East and I had a productive meeting with the Minister in which we put across our views on the situation. I obviously respect the privacy of that meeting, but I will just say that we now know that he will certainly be talking to the Football League.
Time is running out before the season begins and I hope that the discussions will ensure that the club stays in Coventry.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
If I am lucky enough, like my hon. Friend, to catch the eye of the Chair, I hope to make some broader points about the power of football supporters within their clubs. Does he agree that the supporters of Coventry City, who are organised through the Sky Blue Trust, have done a sterling job in supporting him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) in campaigning for Coventry City to be able to play within the bounds of the Coventry conurbation?
Mr Cunningham
I certainly pay tribute to the fans of Coventry City. They have had great patience and have given me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East a lot of support. I cannot praise them highly enough. They are now in the situation of having to travel 70 miles to a stadium outside Coventry, which will cost a significant amount. With the economic situation these days, people are finding it hard to make ends meet, to say the least. The fans have been very loyal to the club over many years, in good times and in bad.
Secondly, the Football League has given approval for the club to play at Northampton. I understand that that might be contrary to the Football League’s own regulations, but we will have to wait and see about that. I disagree with the decision to grant approval because I do not believe that all avenues of negotiation have been exhausted. Until a week ago on Monday, I thought that there was a very good chance that we would make progress with the three main parties in the process. However, when the Football League gave its approval, that took the pressure off all sides to get together and resolve the situation. That was a weapon that the league could and should have used.
I believe that there should be an inquiry into whether the Football League’s regulations have been fully complied with. However, if we assume that they have been complied with, it is still shocking that the situation has reached this late stage without the Football League taking action. To let the situation unravel to the point where a football club cannot play in its home city without the league intervening seems to me to be ridiculous. There should be a review of the Football League’s regulations to ensure that cases such as this one and that of Wimbledon are not repeated.
Thirdly, on a related point, we all know how serious a problem debt can be for football clubs. Debt, rent disputes, company buyouts and takeovers can all be felt by the team and the fans. It is time for a review of the company law relating to football club ownership to take into account the fact that football clubs are not simply businesses. They are not commodities to be bought and sold to make a profit. They mean more than that to the players, the many people involved in a club and, importantly, the fans. It is a great shame when fans can no longer watch their team because of the financial decisions of a few business people. I believe that there should be a review of the law relating to football club ownership and clubs’ financial arrangements. It should not be possible to get into this sort of situation without anything improper or illegal occurring. At some point, Government regulations should prevent this late stage from being reached.
I hope that all Members who are present agree that urgent discussions are essential if a compromise is to be reached that will keep the club in Coventry next season. I urge all sides in the dispute to come together for the future of the club and I call on Ministers to consider carefully this issue and the changes that might prevent such a situation from occurring again.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this pre-recess debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I certainly endorse her hope that the Department for International Development will use some of its resources to facilitate more positive communications of the sort that she describes with North Korea. I hope she will forgive me if I do not promise to read the heavy tome that she recommended on my summer holidays, but I thought she made a very interesting and important contribution.
As my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) indicated, in my speech I shall press the case for more action to support the right of football supporters to have a say in the governance of the football club that they follow, and to call for a higher proportion of television revenues to be directed into grass-roots support. As my hon. Friend made clear in his intervention, Coventry City is just the latest example of a club where supporters’ concerns are being ignored. The particular concern of the supporters’ trust—the Sky Blue Trust—and other supporters of Coventry City more generally is the owners’ desire to shift their club for a number of years some 35 miles away from where it currently plays, with all the difficulties for Coventry City supporters that that will signify.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) have met the Minister. I understand that Coventry City supporters are shortly to take part in a demonstration outside the Football League to demonstrate their concern to the powers that be in the Football League. Given that the Football League’s strap line is “Real football, real fans”, one hopes that it will listen to the concerns of Coventry City fans and intervene.
Mark Pawsey
As the MP for a constituency that neighbours Coventry and with many supporters in my constituency, I very much hope that the Coventry City issue will be resolved. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if Coventry City plays 35 miles away, there might be an opportunity to persuade Coventry City supporters to watch the oval ball game in the city of Coventry at the Butts stadium and see the Coventry rugby club restored to the power in the land that it once was?
Mr Thomas
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will stick to the more general point about the need to give football supporters more say in the governance of their club. Nevertheless, he has made his point and I am sure that Coventry rugby club’s supporters will be delighted that he chose to make it.
The successes of Swansea City and Bayern Munich last season emphasise, in their very different ways, the success of clubs where supporters have a very direct and significant role in how their football club is managed. Swansea City is unique in the Premier League in terms of the involvement of fans in the boardroom. I think that it is high time that that situation changed. The Co-operative party, which I am lucky enough to chair, championed in the late 1990s the idea of football supporters’ trusts to help football supporters co-operate to buy stakes in the running of their clubs. Now many Football League clubs and, indeed, many non-league clubs—the famous cases of AFC Wimbledon or FC United through to the likes of Exeter and Chester—are directly run by their supporters through the mechanism of a supporters’ trust.
The involvement of supporters’ trusts on the boards of clubs helps to ensure that that authentic voice of the supporter is heard when the role of the club in the local community is being discussed, when ticket prices are being debated or when players’ wages and contracts are being agreed. Supporters’ trusts help to ensure that longer term thinking about the future of the club and the need for sustainable finances over the long term are being considered. They help to deliver added social value to their localities and, indeed, on occasion they can boost enterprise in the area.
The Football Association has been under pressure for some time from football supporters to bring forward reforms to football rules to give fans more influence. To date, they have resisted any measures that challenge the autonomy of Premier League club owners. The FA Council’s summer meeting took place last Saturday and sadly was no different from previous such meetings. So if the supporters’ voice is really going to be heard, it seems to me that three key measures are required for change.
First, legislation is needed to make it easier for supporters’ trusts to buy their club. There ought to be a right to buy for supporters’ trusts that allows them to purchase a club at the point of a club entering administration and before receivership at a fair market valuation.
Secondly, for most supporters of Premier League clubs, administration is not likely to happen any time soon and there is no obvious sign either that, despite warm words from some Premier League club owners or managers, a stake in the ownership of Premier League clubs is likely to be sold to supporters’ trusts. Legislation is also needed to embed a right to observe in law. In other words, if a proportion—say 10%—of season ticket holders at a Premier League or Championship club belong to the registered supporters’ trust, that trust ought to have a right to attend and observe board meetings at the club, to receive board papers and to be able, as a result, to question and hold to account the club’s owners and senior staff.
Both these measures would help to embed supporters in the heart of decision making about a football club’s future. Such decisions about the future of a football club should not be the sole preserve of wealthy owners. We need to remember that such clubs have been built on the back of ordinary supporters’ money and commitment and they surely have a right to have better access to the key decisions and decision makers in their club.
The third measure to which I draw the House’s attention is the funding of grass-roots sport, and other related football causes. In 2001, the Premier League agreed to give 5% of its total broadcast income to the provision of grass-roots facilities, and to encourage better provision for supporters. It now claims that that was just for one TV deal, and only for domestic broadcasting rights. I wonder whether we need a back-stop legal power to ensure that that 2001 deal continues into the future. Without such a back-stop power, the Premier League and Football Association have been able to reduce the amount of money given each year to the Football Foundation directly from football clubs.
The need for more investment in grass-roots sport, and perhaps for a lever to change the minds of owners and their defenders in Premier League and FA boardrooms, points to a need for a legal power to impose a levy. If such a levy were ever to be used, it must clearly be kept well away from the Treasury. I hope we would never need to use such a power, but perhaps the Minister would consider the possibility of a back-stop statutory power to get the FA and Premier League to be more serious about funding for grass-roots sport in the future. With a £5 billion broadcast deal, it is not unreasonable to expect the Premier League to offer 5% of its income for investment in grass-roots coaching and facilities.
Lobbying
Gareth Thomas Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hemsworth have chosen the wrong person to attack on the question of tobacco control. When I was in opposition, I made it clear as shadow Secretary of State for Health that my party would not engage with the tobacco industry, and we did not do so. In government, I made it clear that we would comply with the international framework convention on tobacco control, which precludes the exercise of influence on our policy by the tobacco industry, and we do so. I was the person who sat down and talked to the Australian Health Minister, way back in the latter part of 2010, in order to understand what she intended to do, and I was the one who launched a consultation on standardised packaging for tobacco. I know that this Government are taking decisions in the best interests of the people of this country, including on health grounds, and that we are not taking them at the behest of any tobacco company.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether the Bill will include a statutory code of conduct that lobbyists will have to abide by?
Mr Lansley
And to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), whose views I always respect.
As a Government, we believe that we must choose the route of trying to produce a transparent system. The contrary route—a completely rules-based approach, rather than one based on principles—is more likely to fail, as too often rules then create loopholes that people will exploit when they can. In contrast, we are setting out to create an open and transparent culture that transforms behaviour so that people live up to these principles. As a Government, we have pursued such an open approach, so that we can look with justification to promoting some of the most transparent actions ever.
Mr Lansley
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman before.
We have published departmental business plans so that Ministers can be held to account on the development of policy. We have published more than 9,000 datasets from Government Departments, public sector bodies and local authorities. We have published details of Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ meetings with external individuals, including lobbyists. We have published details of gifts, overseas travel and hospitality received by Ministers and special advisers. We are now planning to go further with a Bill to create a statutory register of lobbyists.
Let me be clear, as the hon. Member for Hemsworth was, that there is nothing wrong with lobbying as such. It is a necessary—indeed an inevitable—part of policy making and the parliamentary process. Politics is about the reconciliation of conflicting interests in society, and the articulation of those interests is necessary to enable the political system to be effective. What is required is that the representation of interests to decision makers is made transparently, fairly, accountably and free of improper influence. The Nolan principles provide a high-level framework, as amplified by the code of conduct for Members here and by the ministerial code. If, in all cases, Members and lobbyists lived with the letter and the spirit of those principles and codes, our system could command greater confidence.
Mr Lansley
I will give way in a few moments.
In that respect, there is a lacuna, in that when Ministers meet consultant lobbyists, it is not always clear to the public on whose behalf those consultants or companies are lobbying. The purpose of the measures we will introduce is to rectify that deficiency.
Of course, to make the transparency complete, further steps may be required. In particular, lobbyist meetings with shadow Ministers, the relationships of external interests to parliamentarians through all-party parliamentary groups and Select Committees, including their Chairs, may require further steps. The latter issues relating to all-party groups and Select Committees are, as I mentioned earlier, matters for the House, and the Government welcome the referral of these issues by Mr Speaker to the Committee on Standards—now, of course, reinforced by its lay membership. I hope that the House will be able to consider what steps to take on the basis of that Committee’s advice. As I have made clear, the House should proceed only on the basis of recommendations relating to House matters from its own bodies for this purpose. I know these issues are not as straightforward as some represent them, but we are now proceeding with them.
Mr Lansley
I will give way later.
The question of the publication of shadow Ministers’ diaries in the same way as Ministers currently publish theirs is, of course, a matter for the Labour Front-Bench team.
Mr Lansley
In the spirit of openness, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). I hope he will indicate the willingness of his shadow Front-Bench team to publish their diaries in the same way as Ministers publish theirs.
Mr Lansley
I am sorry, but I did not hear the hon. Gentleman volunteer any comment in response to my question. To be fair, perhaps it is more the responsibility of the hon. Member for Hemsworth, so perhaps he would like to stand up and say that shadow Ministers believe that in order to secure the necessary transparency, they, as well as Ministers, should publish their diaries.
John Stevenson
We hope that today’s debate will help to inform Members of the House and bring the issues to light, and, thus, inform the Second Reading debate.
As I said, I will support the underlying principles of the Government’s forthcoming legislation. I would, however, wish to ensure that it is as simple and as straightforward to administer as possible. It should not and must not over-regulate the industry. Clearly, I accept it must be comprehensive in its approach to ensure that all appropriate organisations are registerable, and ensure a fair and level playing field. Organisations in the commercial sector must be included, as should trade organisations, certain charities and organisations that are campaigning to influence the legislative process and Executive decisions—yes, that should include the trade union movement.
Trade unions are an important part of our industrial relations and our political process. They are undoubtedly one of the most powerful lobbying organisations in the country, receiving substantial sums from the taxpayer; in July 2010, the trade unions received nearly £6 million. I believe that 23 members of the shadow Cabinet have received funding from trade unions and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said, nine Labour MPs are sponsoring parliamentary passes for trade union lobbyists. Powerful bodies that, in effect, bankroll one of the main political parties must be seen to be open and transparent and must be open and transparent. That is in their interests, as well as in those of the public. This is an opportunity to help improve the transparency and accountability of the trade unions. In particular, when they are lobbying, it should be clear what their true membership is and what the implications are for strike ballots and for the payment of the political levy. All should be open to scrutiny and proper confirmation.
Mr Thomas
For the avoidance of doubt, we do not have a problem with those who work for trade unions and who lobby being covered by a more comprehensive piece of legislation than the Government are considering. We think that all in-house lobbyists should be covered by the legislation. That is the point of difference between us and the Government, and between the hon. Gentleman and the Government, too.
John Stevenson
I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Labour party will support the inclusion of trade unions, because it failed to do any of that in its time in office. Labour had 13 years in office and we had absolutely nothing from the Labour party. As with much of the present political agenda, Labour is playing catch-up with Government policies on a range of issues, as well as with the views of the public. This is another example of Labour trying to pretend that it is on the right side of the argument.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Today of all days, I should draw Members’ attention to my register entry on this topic.
At the beginning of the debate, there seemed little chance of consensus, but as it has gone on issues have emerged on which Members on both sides of the House can be pleased that progress has been made. We have, however, either underplayed or glossed over three specific points, the first of which is obviously one of definition. Despite numerous speeches on the topic, we are still pretty unclear about precisely who should or might be caught by the proposals. Secondly, we have, I believe, slightly underplayed the positive contribution made by lobbyists to many of our lives—not only in the House, but in our constituencies. Thirdly, we have made some progress, albeit not much, on how the matter can be properly resolved.
We need to give the greatest care and longest time to the problem of definition. We have touched on the role of pressure groups, which include charities, as well as industry representatives—a phrase that could cover a multitude of sins. Local groups could be well funded or well advised or simply put themselves together on the spur of the moment to lobby us in our constituencies on a particular interest or issue. The words “professional lobbyist” have been used without much qualification during the debate. More clarity on who would come under that description is crucial if we are to get things right.
Mr Thomas
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the need for clarity from the Government about definition. Has he seen the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report, especially its recommendation that the Government should
“clarify whether its definition of lobbying includes lobbying advice, or only direct representation, to avoid confusion regarding who should, and should not register as a lobbyist”?
Simon Hart
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I have seen the report; as I am still a member of that Committee, from time to time I read our reports. I take his point, but if he will forgive me I will come back to it in my closing remarks. If I forget, no doubt he will intervene.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
This has been an extremely interesting debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) set out, we hope that this debate will prompt the Government to recognise the urgent need to introduce a statutory register for all who lobby professionally and a clear code of conduct, including a ban on financial relationships between lobbyists and parliamentarians and clear sanctions where the code is breached. Those sanctions should ultimately include preventing serious offenders from practising by removing them from the register.
In his opening remarks, the Leader of the House did not explain why the Government were against a clear statutory code of conduct for lobbyists, so it would be good to hear more from the Deputy Leader of the House about that and to hear him explain how a register that covers only third-party lobbyists will clarify the Tesco problem—to paraphrase the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who is no longer in his place—and help us to find out what big organisations are lobbying the Government about. It is not often clear or self-apparent what an organisation is lobbying about, given their range of interests.
As our motion makes clear, we are willing to work on a cross-party basis, so that all our collective interests can be served. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) and the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). It is in the long-term interests of both sides of the House, as well as of those we seek to serve, that we toughen up the rules on lobbying and that we get them right. As several hon. Members, not least the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), made clear, it is important to remember that much of the lobbying we get is critical to helping MPs do their jobs: the letter from constituents demanding improvements in patient care, the quiet word from small businesses about the failure of big banks to lend money. These are all forms of lobbying, and they all benefit our democracy by contributing to political debate.
Nevertheless, the growth in the amount of evidence on the scale of lobbying and its ability to influence Ministers makes it imperative that we make progress. Lobbying reform is now essential if the Government are to retain the benefit of the doubt among our constituents that they serve the common good and that Ministers are not subservient to the private interests of millionaires and big business. As my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) made clear, the public’s concern is that much of the lobbying industry is hidden from public view. A lobbyist is not obliged to identify who they are, what they do, the sources of their finance, who their ultimate client is and how much is being spent. In short, there is no requirement on lobbyists or those who want lobbying done to operate in the open, in the light, where their conversations and the responses of those they lobby can be scrutinised more effectively.
The best lobbyists, it is true, operate according to an ethical code, but comparatively few are signed up to the various codes that exist, so without clear legal force and teeth, such voluntary codes of conduct will clearly not be taken seriously enough by all in the industry. There have been a series of revelations about the scale of big business’s influence on key Government legislation, such as, for example, the Leader of the House’s disastrous Health and Social Care Act 2012. I am not against the lobbying of Government by big business—I welcome it on the same basis as I welcome all lobbying—but it has to be done in the open. It would appear, however, as a result of the Government’s proposals, that lobbyists working directly for big business groups will not be required to register—an extraordinary situation—to abide by any code of conduct or to spell out what they are lobbying about.
Already the concern exists that too often it is the voice of one or two corporate lobbyists that gets heard in Downing street, the Department of Health and throughout Whitehall, not the voice of ordinary people in Britain. There are other international examples of clearer, tougher measures being taken on lobbying, notably in the United States, in Canada and in Australia, all of which have tougher legislation than Ministers are proposing here.
Ministers claim that because records of ministerial meetings are published, in-house lobbyists do not need to be included on any register. It is worth remembering, however, that The Independent carried out an analysis of who Ministers met in the first 18 months of their time in office. Out of 4,000-plus declared ministerial meetings recorded by the Government, only seven were with lobbying firms. Perhaps the Ministers did not have much contact with lobbyists, but that is difficult to believe given last year’s revelations about McKinsey’s influence on the Bill introduced by the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), and about Fred Michel’s influence on the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. A register that requires only a few lobbying firms to register will not represent a great leap forward for transparency.
After three years in office, this Government ought to be making more progress on lobbying reform. Things should be getting better, yet lobbying scandals keep on coming, and Ministers are failing to turn things round. The Government are standing up for the wrong people—in this case, the secretive in-house lobbyists—instead of for ordinary people. We want change, real transparency, a statutory code of conduct and a requirement for all lobbyists to register. That is not much to ask; it is what the British people want, and it is time the Government delivered it.
Tom Brake
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would have given way to the hon. Member for Nottingham North if he had waited his turn.
As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire can be reassured that when the Bill is published, there will be clarity and no room for misunderstanding or misconstruing the Government’s intentions when it comes to the definitions of lobbying, who is covered and who is not covered.
I was a little bit alarmed at the beginning of the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) when he seemed to be inviting you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to test the market to see what the going rate for paid representation was. Later, he clarified that that was not what he was suggesting. He raised a serious point about the powers that we have as a House to enforce our own rules. He wanted us to exercise those powers diligently and without hesitation, and I would certainly agree with him on that. We were then given the parliamentary equivalent of a TED talk on parliamentary privilege, which I suggest we put on YouTube for others to view later. Finally, I can give the reassurance that it is not the Government’s intention to include the Whips in the register.
Finally, there was a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who described herself as a lobbyist for her constituents—a role that we all applaud. We should all seek to imitate her in that role. She reinforced the point that both Front-Bench teams should show transparency. We will want to hear more from the Opposition about that.
Mr Thomas
May I pursue a point raised by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston)? Why does the right hon. Gentleman, a Liberal Democrat, think it acceptable for Crosby Textor not to have to abide by a statutory code of conduct? That is the gist of the proposals that he is supporting.
Tom Brake
I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I work very closely together. I have some responsibility for some aspects of Liberal Democrat policy, and he speaks for the Conservatives on some issues relating to the Conservative party. However, the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman is clearly a Conservative party issue, and not an issue for the Deputy Leader or, indeed, the Leader of the House.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) was anxious for us to be able to deal with unaccountable wealth that wields unaccountable influence in this place. I hope that we shall at least be able to clarify the position relating to third-party lobbyists, who often represent companies with considerable wealth. I worry about the hon. Gentleman, however: I do not know what the Deputy Prime Minister has done to him, but he clearly has a large chip on his shoulder. I recommend therapy to deal with that.
The hon. Member for Warrington North said that members of the public had lost faith in politicians. I agree with her to some extent, but I should point out that according to the latest report by the Hansard Society, the public feel that in certain respects politicians in this place have a greater influence on affairs. That may be partly a result of the e-petition process and the important role played by the Backbench Business Committee.
The hon. Lady issued a plea for the register to include in-house lobbyists who were connected with charities, trade unions and churches, but did not say why she considered that to be necessary. As I have already explained, quarterly reports of meetings between Ministers and permanent secretaries and in-house lobbyists provide the details of those who were met and the purposes of the meetings.
Business of the House
Gareth Thomas Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am sorry to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about his constituent’s family circumstances. Foreign Office questions are on 5 March, and he might like to consider raising the matter then. Alternatively, Members often think that an Adjournment debate on such circumstances might be appropriate.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
On 4 December, I tabled a round robin question asking each Department how many computers, mobile telephones, BlackBerries and other pieces of IT equipment had been lost. I have received answers from every Department —very interesting they are too—apart from the Cabinet Office. Will the Leader of the House use his influence to get me an answer, bearing in mind that I also tabled a named day question on 16 January and have not had an answer to that either?
Business of the House
Gareth Thomas Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary is in her place and will be making the quarterly statement on Afghanistan immediately following business questions. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, he may have an opportunity to raise that issue.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
May we have a debate on the future management of acute hospitals, particularly in London? I ask because there is now survey evidence showing that a significant number of members of the Royal College of Physicians would not recommend their hospital for the treatment of their friends and family.
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Prime Minister and I have rightly emphasised the friends and family test. It involves both staff and patients being asked whether they would recommend their services. My colleagues at the Department of Health will continuously examine how we can improve acute hospital services. I have discussed the future hospital programme with the Royal College of Physicians, and what we are doing to modernise the NHS will absolutely address the issues that it raises. As it says, we should recognise that the increasing burden of ill health among older people, which is a consequence of increased life expectancy, should increasingly be managed through improvements to services in the community. That will mean that we can focus hospital services on patients who genuinely need to be in hospital.
Whitsun Recess
Gareth Thomas Excerpts(11 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, but I hesitate to do so after the contribution of the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who I thought made an excellent speech and spoke with considerable compassion about the death of her constituent. I am sure that the Minister will want to respond in the most appropriate manner possible.
I seek to raise four issues on the Whitsun Adjournment. The first relates to the future of the custody suite at Harrow police station, which serves my constituency. I heard in April that the Metropolitan police were planning to close the custody suite in October. There are rumours this week that the decision has been put on hold and that a final decision on closing or saving it will be taken in the autumn. There certainly appears to be a considerable body of opinion within the higher levels of the Met in favour of closing the custody suite. That would leave Harrow with no custody suite, and one of only two London boroughs—both in the suburbs of London, as I understand the other is Richmond—without one. To date, there has been no proper explanation from the Metropolitan police of why they think Harrow’s custody suite, which has 13 cells, should close.
I raised this issue on the Floor of the House during Home Office questions, and—understandably—the Home Secretary replied that it was an operational matter for the Metropolitan police. At first glance, she is absolutely right, Nevertheless, I encourage Ministers to use their influence to ask the Metropolitan police to reconsider.
As I have said, Harrow’s custody suite consists of 13 cells. There are 5,000 “visits”, as they are called in the jargon, to those cells each year. Potentially, therefore, 5,000 prisoners would have to be held in other custody suites. I understand that the Metropolitan police want those who are arrested in Harrow to be housed at Kilburn and Wembley police stations. On one level, I am not concerned about where a prisoner from my constituency is housed. What concerns me and many of my constituents is that if prisoners have to be transported to those other custody suites for the purposes of an investigation into whether they have committed the crimes of which they are accused and preparation of paperwork for court appearances, substantial police officer time will be wasted. That would inevitably have an impact on the quality and number of investigations that can take place at Harrow. Travelling to Kilburn during the rush hour can take more than an hour, and travelling to Wembley on cup final day can take a long time as well. According to one estimate, based on that figure of 5,000 visits a year, between 10,000 and 20,000 police officer hours could be wasted in transporting prisoners to the two new custody suites.
I understand that shortly after a custody suite closes, the CID team in the Met go to the replacement custody suite. Given that more than 100 CID officers are currently based at Harrow police station, my constituents are understandably concerned that those officers may find themselves permanently based at Wembley police station in Brent. That, too, would reduce the level and quality of policing in my constituency.
In an attempt to establish the reason for the Metropolitan police’s decision, I tabled a freedom of information request asking them for details of all their custody suites, including the number of cells and the staffing levels. There are some 44 custody suites in London; 14 contain fewer cells than Harrow police station, and at many substantially more staff and police officers are based than are based at Harrow. The decision by the Metropolitan police to close the Harrow custody suite therefore does not appear to have been made on cost grounds. I am told that the Met may have had in mind the quality of the cells at Harrow and that some capital investment is certainly needed, but I am also told that there is no difference in quality between Harrow and Kilburn.
I was not consulted on, or even formally told of, the decision in advance. I have written to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who has told me that an assistant commissioner will be writing to me to explain why Harrow police station has been singled out. I have not yet received that letter. I welcome the fact that the Met may well reconsider the decision, but I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will use his influence to encourage Home Office Ministers to have a quiet word in the ear of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and urge him to reverse it.
The second issue is the proposed airport in the Thames estuary. On behalf of the airports serving my constituency, notably Heathrow, I have concerns about that proposal. There are several noisy cheerleaders for the Thames estuary airport, even though it does not make sense in air traffic control terms, it would require hugely costly investment in roads, housing and other infrastructure, and years of architects’, planners’ and traffic and environment consultants’ time, and it certainly would not solve London’s immediate need for extra airport capacity. Many rival airports, notably Schiphol in the Netherlands, have experienced a significant increase in business in recent months. Given that the Thames estuary airport has not begun to go through any of its planning, environmental, financial or air traffic control assessment processes, owners of such rival airports must be licking their lips at the prospect of the months or even years they will have to attract international business away from London’s airports while the debate about a Thames estuary airport continues.
National Air Traffic Services has quietly pointed out the considerable additional problems a Thames estuary airport will cause in London’s already congested airspace. It would sit directly under the central route into London’s airspace, so aeroplanes carrying thousands of passengers a year would be taking off and landing at the new airport through one of the world’s busiest airspaces. In short, a Thames estuary airport is about as sensible as building a new crèche in the middle of a motorway. It would also shift the eastern boundary of London’s air traffic holding patterns, in turn opening up the need for negotiations with other nations about changes to UK airspace, which, at best, would mean another delay to any new airport’s start date. Worse still, there is the risk of creating an investment hiatus at London’s existing airports, as the business community waits to see whether the idea of a Thames estuary airport can really be made to work.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am listening very carefully as I was brought up in London. I have always been astonished that we are the only capital city in the world where the Head of State and the Prime Minister can be woken up at 5 o’clock on Christmas morning by planes flying over. Everywhere else, airports are situated some distance away, so planes do not need to fly over city centres. I wonder whether my hon. Friend is right to dismiss the idea of shifting everything a little eastwards, with planes flying into the wind from the east, rather than over the capital city. Also, if there was an accident involving a plane flying over central London, that could be incredibly dangerous.
Mr Thomas
Nobody wants to lose any passenger through an air traffic incident, and, of course, we would want to minimise disruption to anybody, whether a Prime Minister or not, but we have to look at these issues in the round, and I gently say to my right hon. Friend that, notwithstanding the noise level that the Prime Minister currently has to deal with, he should consider the range of issues mounting up against the idea of a Thames estuary airport.
I am worried about the Thames estuary airport proposal stalling investment at Heathrow. Many of my constituents work at Heathrow, or in the businesses that thrive in the economy associated with it. Leaving aside the considerable financial, air traffic control and other such reasons for not going ahead with the Thames estuary airport, I cannot see how an airport there could be in the interest of west London, as Heathrow would, in effect, be downgraded from the major international hub airport it is now and would lose the jobs and investment that a major airport brings in its wake. That is what would happen if a Thames estuary airport were built.
My last point about the problems with the Thames estuary airport relates to the environmental challenges it would generate, which do not appear to have been taken on board yet. I gently suggest to Ministers that the proposal for an airport in the Thames estuary is a distraction from, not a solution to, the issue of airport capacity. It has the potential to damage the economy that serves my constituency in the area around Heathrow, and I urge Ministers to bring it to a close.
The third issue that I briefly wish to discuss is Sri Lanka, and the report that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has just released on human rights across the world, which touches on Sri Lanka. I very much welcome the report, and I commend the FCO for continuing the tradition of publishing a report on human rights in the countries in which we all, as a House of Commons, have a considerable interest. The report noted the considerable number of disappearances and abductions that are continuing in the north and east of Sri Lanka, in particular, with a sharp rise at the end of the year.
A number of my constituents have brought to my attention the unexplained death of a young Tamil man, Easwarathasan Ketheeswaran, who was deported back to Sri Lanka from the UK. I have tabled questions to the FCO and the Home Office on the matter. I asked the FCO whether it has had discussions with the regime in Sri Lanka to press questions about the quality of the police investigation into this young man’s death. I asked the Home Office whether this unexplained death of someone deported back to Sri Lanka from our country will affect its policy on the deportations of Tamil men, in particular, back to Sri Lanka.
The FCO report gave detail about the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, and recalled that the Sri Lankan Government’s own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission report had noted a serious lack of investigations by the Sri Lankan police into disappearances and human rights abuses, particularly in the north and east of the country. The commission went on to note the failure of the Sri Lankan police on some occasions to register complaints when people had come to see them to point out disappearances, abductions and human rights abuses. Indeed, as the FCO’s work pointed out, that commission report also highlighted the continuing substantial military presence in the north and east of Sri Lanka, which it said was making the northern province, in particular, unsafe for women. The FCO report went on to note the number of war widows in the northern and eastern provinces—approximately 90,000.
Many hon. Members will be familiar with the huge number of deaths in Sri Lanka at the end of the conflict in 2009, which prompted United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to appoint a panel of experts to report on both the scale of the killings and the level of human rights abuses in the run-up to the last months of the conflict, when more than 40,000 people were killed. According to the UN report, many of those people lost their lives as a result of the Sri Lankan military’s use of cluster bombs and as a result of the intense bombing of areas, even those designated as “no-fire zones”. The UN report also noted that huge numbers of Tamils in particular in the north and east suffered at the end of the conflict from a lack of access to food and medicine, as the Sri Lankan military allowed food and medicine through to the then still LTTE-controlled areas in very few cases.
The UN panel concluded that there was evidence of possible war crimes and crimes against humanity and repeated the call for an international independent investigation into those war crimes allegations. Encouragingly, the UN Human Rights Council recently concluded that there needs to be a proper international investigation and that people should be held to account.
In addition, the International Crisis Group, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and other Members have highlighted the growing insecurity of women in the north and east because of lack of access to housing or jobs and the generally unsafe environment in which they live. What can the Government do to help? They should certainly continue to keep up the pressure for an independent international inquiry. Many of my constituents were disappointed by the decision to invite the President of Sri Lanka to take part in the jubilee celebrations without assurances being sought that he will be accommodating to the UN and will help an independent international inquiry to take place.
Another direct thing that the Government could do, through the Department for International Development—I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will take this point back to the Department—is fund one or two international non-governmental organisations with a proper track record in such matters to provide support and assistance to the women and many children in the north and east of Sri Lanka who are vulnerable. I know from my time as a Minister in DFID that it does not have staff based in Sri Lanka and could not therefore set up its own aid programme, but it does fund many international organisations—from the Oxfams and Save the Childrens to the Islamic Reliefs and so on—that work in countries across the world where the Department does not have a full operation of its own. They could be trusted to provide proper development assistance to incredibly vulnerable people.
My final point is very different and concerns London Welsh rugby football club’s application to join rugby’s premiership. As Members will recognise, I have some Welsh roots and a number of my constituents, like me, enjoy cheering on London Welsh. For the first time in the history of the rugby championship in the UK, London Welsh has got through to the play-off final and it submitted its bid to the Rugby Football Union to be considered for a place in the premiership should it win. Yesterday, before the first leg of that play-off final was due to take place, the RFU published the results of its investigation into London Welsh’s bid and rejected it out of hand. Proper reasons have not yet been given for the decision, but if media reports are to be believed it appears that the application was rejected because London Welsh does not have its own ground that meets premiership standards. As London Welsh spokespeople have pointed out to the media, a series of premiership teams are already in that category, notably Saracens.
Mr MacShane
I wish my hon. Friend all the best, but frankly the men in blazers and those bright pink and orange corduroy trousers who control the RFU will not give any consideration to the passion of London Welsh, its players and its supporters. We experienced that in Rotherham when we got into the premier league and were then booted out. We had a wonderful ground and people could get right down to the touchline to watch the rugby. It is much better than sitting up in a big stadium, but those gentlemen of a particular class are the worst administrators of any of our major games. I wish my hon. Friend well, but he ain’t going to get going until they change their corduroy trousers.
Mr Thomas
I am a huge supporter of my right hon. Friend on most things, as he knows, but I hope that on this occasion he will allow me to take a slightly more temperate view of the Rugby Football Union. In general, I think it does a good job and I hope that it will reconsider London Welsh’s application.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
As the Member of Parliament for Rugby and someone with great enthusiasm for the game of rugby, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that true rugby fans across the country will have enormous sympathy with the case he is making? The teams that do well deserve the right to be promoted.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful for the support of the hon. Gentleman and, I think, the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) for this great cause.
London Welsh players responded in the best way possible to the news last night when they won the away leg at the Cornish Pirates’ ground 37 points to 21. We take a 16-point lead into the home game at the Oxford Kassam stadium next Wednesday evening. I hope that members of the RFU board will come to that stadium to see just how well that ground could house premiership rugby next year.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I note that the fourth issue he has addressed, rugby, has attracted a lot more interest in the Chamber than the previous three. I endorse the comments that we have just heard about the quality of administration in the RFU. If he or his club would like to come to the rugby league to see an example of fine administration they should do that.
Let me make a serious point about London Welsh, which I think would be replacing Newcastle in the premiership. I have nothing at all against London Welsh, but it would be a pity if the whole of the rugby union premiership became dominated by teams from the south and did not include fine teams such as Rotherham and Newcastle, which have dropped out of that league.
Mr Thomas
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the need for rugby union to have a very diverse base across the country. I certainly hope that when Newcastle takes its place in the championship, as I hope it will, it continues to benefit from the RFU’s support and largesse so that it can have a genuine chance of winning a place back in the premiership. Nevertheless, we have to allow proper promotion and relegation to take place. I do not think London Welsh has been properly treated thus far. I raise this issue in the House today because I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House might encourage the Minister for Sport and the Olympics to use his influence to encourage the RFU to publish the full details of its assessment and how it reached the decision to reject London Welsh’s application for the premiership, so that London Welsh has all the facts in front of it as it prepares its case for appeal.