Summer Adjournment
Gareth Thomas Excerpts(12 years, 6 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(12 years, 7 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(13 years 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(13 years, 4 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(13 years, 8 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.
Business of the House
Gareth Thomas Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I encourage the Leader of the House, as a former Transport Secretary, to seek the support of his successor for a debate on airport capacity in the south-east. I ask that in the context of speculation about the future of RAF Northolt, which is adjacent to my constituency and whose flight paths go across it. There has been much speculation about a substantial increase in business jet usage of RAF Northolt, about which many of my constituents are understandably concerned, so they would want to participate in the broader debate on that issue.
Sir George Young
If the hon. Gentleman is ingenious, he may be able to raise the issue when we deal with the remaining stages of the Civil Aviation Bill, when there will be a two-hour debate. Subject to what the occupant of the Chair decides, it may be possible to raise the issue of Northolt during that debate; I will certainly forewarn the Minister replying to it that she is likely to get this matter coming in to land.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gareth Thomas Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
On something slightly different, will Ministers explain how they intend to turn the enthusiasm to volunteer to help with the Olympics into long-term volunteering in our communities, given the decision to axe funding for the national volunteer service?
Hugh Robertson
The answer to that is very simple. A fantastic new scheme called “Join In”, which is being promoted by the Cabinet Office, will do exactly that.
Business of the House
Gareth Thomas Excerpts(14 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I understand my hon. Friend’s interest in the multiplier effect of work on the Olympic games. My understanding is that 12,000 workers currently work on the Olympic park and village, and that 21% of the Olympic park work force live in the five host boroughs. In addition, 330 apprentices are on site, and a large number of previously unemployed people have been placed in work through the brokerage of the Olympic Delivery Authority. I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes such an impact in his constituency and is convinced that there is local benefit.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the Leader of the House yet had time to read the National Audit Office report, which raises a series of concerns about progress on the Olympics, especially around the regeneration of east London and the economic, social and sporting legacies of the Olympic games? Will he consider the possibility of a debate in Government time about how we can get those promises back on track, so that we can deliver the full potential of the Olympic games in those key areas?
Summer Adjournment
Gareth Thomas Excerpts(15 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a great shame that the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) is not in his place, as I would like to correct something he said earlier. He referred to a much-quoted sentence when he said that this Parliament was the “mother of all Parliaments”. In fact, this was originally said by the Liberal John Bright, but when he said it, he was not referring to this Parliament as being the mother of all Parliaments, but saying that England was the mother of Parliament. He, like many Liberals, was wrong as well, because the longest-standing Parliament was not this country’s, but the Icelandic Althingi, which first sat in 929. We should at times be a bit more careful about our history.
That brings me to the first issue I want to raise, which relates to the pernicious and now-published Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. It is pernicious because, for a start, it shackles together two issues that have no proper right to be in the same Bill. If they have to be in the same Bill, they should be in the other published Bill that provides for fixed-term Parliaments; it would then be a general constitutional reform Bill. Indeed, elements of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill presume that the other Bill is going to be carried, so there is an argument for putting all three issues together, but not just two.
The Bill is also pernicious because it will increase the power of patronage in this House. Cutting the number of seats from 650 to 600 without cutting the number of Ministers will increase the role that patronage plays in this House. I note in passing that the Liberals have decided to add yet more patronage by creating these rather strange Liberal Whips. The tentacles of patronage needed to keep this coalition together are, as I say, pernicious.
The most pernicious element of all relates to the process that the Bill presumes will happen. Accordingly, the Boundary Commissions will draw up reports for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. They will send them to the Secretary of State who will then— I am not joking, but the legislation might be—
“lay…before Parliament…the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect with or without modifications”
to the recommendations. In other words, the Secretary of State can draw up precisely what the constituency boundaries look like and this House will not be able to amend it because it will be an Order in Council. All we could do is vote for or against it. That is indeed pernicious.
The Deputy Prime Minister has referred on television and radio to the coalition introducing the best reforms since the Great Reform Act of 1832. This is not a great reform Bill: it is a great patronage Bill; it is a great gerrymandering Bill; it is a great partisan shenanigans Bill—and it is also, incidentally, the great rotten boroughs for Liberals in Scotland Bill. In case anyone is not certain, I am wholly opposed to it.
The second issue I want to discuss is S4C, although I understand that this may not be a matter of scintillating interest to everyone in the House. We heard over the weekend that the Government are going to cut the funding for S4C by 6% every year for the next four years. This has not, of course, been announced to the House, but I understand that S4C has been told about it. The funding of S4C is laid down in statute. In order to change its funding—I think it would be a big mistake to take £24 million out of the Welsh broadcasting economy—the Government would introduce primary legislation, unless they are doing some kind of dodgy deal in the background which they are not prepared to tell us about in the House.
I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to reply to each of the issues that I am raising, or to ensure that Ministers do so. I believe that, as we move into a fully digital era, the existence of S4C is all the more important for my constituents. It enables them to see Welsh coverage on television, not only in the Welsh language but, increasingly, in the English language.
I also urge the Deputy Leader of the House to consider the issue of the funding of the BBC. Many people in this country believe that the BBC is one of the greatest institutions that Britain has ever given to our society and to the world. We all have our complaints about individual journalists—about their being biased, or not biased—but the honest truth is that around the world, the BBC and the World Service are well respected and admired. Let me say to the Government that anyone in any other country would be astounded at the thought that we would cut the funding of the BBC by any significant amount.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech. I particularly approve of his comments about the BBC. Does he agree that the BBC could provide a service for my constituents in Harrow by investigating the circumstances in which ColArt, which runs a factory in my constituency employing some 200 people, wants to shift manufacturing operations from Wealdstone to France, thus putting at risk the jobs of many of my constituents? Is that not a subject that the BBC could usefully investigate?
Chris Bryant
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the phenomenal sagacity and dexterity that he has just shown. Obviously there should be at least an investigative programme by the likes of “Panorama”—if it has any time to spare between investigations of the shenanigans in the Liberal party.
The serious point I am making is that cutting the BBC licence fee has absolutely nothing to do with cutting the deficit, and that, through its investment in all the creative industries, the BBC plays a vital role in many other parts of our British national identity.
That brings me to my next point. One of our actions as a Government of which I am particularly proud was our introduction of the artist’s resale right in the United Kingdom, which has benefited 1,827 artists—although it may be a bit more since this morning. Ten million pounds have gone to those artists. It is mostly the smaller names rather than the very famous people who are receiving the money, but an investment is also being made in the important artistic community in this country. The British art market put out a rumour that our action would destroy it, but in fact the market has risen by roughly 23% year on year since 2003. I urge the Government to ensure that the right applies not only to living artists but to the estates and families of artists who have died, because they are often the people who maintain the heritage of those artists.
Finally, I want to raise another issue relating to south Wales. The defence training academy at St Athan will dramatically improve the quality of training that we give our armed forces. It will provide between 5,000 and 6,000 jobs in south Wales, and should therefore be seen not as an optional add-on, but as essential to our defence of the realm.
Business of the House
Gareth Thomas Excerpts(15 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
It is our intention for there to be pre-legislative scrutiny where appropriate, but the hon. Lady will understand that in the first term of a new Parliament with a new Government, it is not possible for all the legislative proposals to be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. There will be draft Bills on House of Lords reform, which is a constitutional measure, and on privileges, but if we want to make progress and improve the constitution of this country, there cannot be draft Bills on everything.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
During last week’s business questions, the Leader of the House agreed to seek a statement from Foreign Office colleagues about the health of democracy in the Maldives. I do not believe that such a statement has yet been forthcoming. Given that the Foreign Office has issued a travel warning for British tourists to the Maldives, that opposition MPs there are still being detained and that the Chief Justice has been intimidated, will the right hon. Gentleman redouble his efforts to secure such a statement?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue again. As he will know, this country, the UN, the US and EU heads of mission have issued a public statement urging the political parties of the Maldives to engage in a constructive and open dialogue, to address the challenges to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We have stressed to the Government of the Maldives the importance of upholding the rule of law and we remain a strong supporter of the democratic reform process in the Maldives.