Members’ Paid Directorships and Consultancies

Ian Swales Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I am trying to establish that we must move on from the status quo, and today’s motion is about how we can do that.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

The Independent published an interesting league table today, listing the top 10 MPs who earn money outside the House. I am also interested in the choice of words in the motion—and, indeed, in the manuscript amendment, if we are able to see it. Does the hon. Lady believe that anything in the motion would affect the earnings of No. 1 on that list, who earned £962,000 last year—the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)?

[Ms Eagle]

Let me take this opportunity to make it extremely clear that the motion is not aimed at any particular individual. It is concerned with what Parliament should do to modernise the way in which it interacts with the world outside. I night add that I suspect that ex-Prime Ministers have a rather higher earnings potential than many of the rest of us. Furthermore—I should make this point, now that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) has brought the issue up—I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath gives every penny of that money to charity, and does not take any of it himself. Given the import of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I think that should be put on the record.

Business of the House

Ian Swales Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Those are important issues, and the Government will have a great deal to say in such a debate about what has been achieved. Given the forthcoming business schedule, I cannot offer a debate in Government time, but the hon. Gentleman can of course pursue a debate in many different ways, including through the Backbench Business Committee, and I encourage him to do so.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

My constituent David Harrison was employed through a so-called umbrella company in the building trade. His payslip shows deductions for holiday pay, company margin and both employer’s and employee’s national insurance. Some umbrella firms are paying part of the wages as expenses to avoid tax. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement on the legality of such arrangements and what enforcement action his Department is taking?

[Mr Hague]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern about that. I cannot offer a statement, but he may be aware that there are oral questions to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on Monday, so there will be an early opportunity to ask about that and other issues.

Business of the House

Ian Swales Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Devolution in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and London has been accompanied by electoral reform. May I ask, as one Yorkshireman to another, for a debate on the type of electoral reform that should accompany any possible devolution in England?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend may recall that we had quite a big debate three years ago called a national referendum, in which the entire country took part. Many millions of people voted and the result was emphatic. If a 55% result in Scotland is meant to be for a generation or a lifetime, which I hope that it is, a 67% result on electoral reform—I think that that was the outcome—might also last for a generation or a lifetime.

Business of the House

Ian Swales Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the provision that Ministers refer to is in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill. There will be an opportunity, as I announced in the provisional business, for that to be debated.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Control of discretionary social funds passed from the Department for Work and Pensions to local councils on 1 April 2013. In the first year, my local Labour council, Redcar and Cleveland, turned down 91% of applications from people in need and spent only £256,000 of its £765,000 allocation. May we have a debate on how councils are making use of these discretionary social funds?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which might benefit from an application for an Adjournment debate, not least because there may be other Members elsewhere in the House who feel strongly, as he does, about this and their local authority’s decisions.

Business of the House

Ian Swales Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady raises an issue of the greatest importance to Members, and indeed to people across the country and especially to parents. I will, of course, talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I was not present at the summit meeting with internet companies, but I know that she is working very hard on these issues. I particularly welcome the additional support given to the Internet Watch Foundation, which was previously based in my constituency and continues to operate out of Cambridgeshire. I hope that we will be able to work together across the House to ensure that we take every practical measure we can to reduce child exploitation and abuse.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Sixth-form colleges are a vital and highly successful part of our education system, but they are treated by the Government as orphans of the further education sector. This means that they face issues that school sixth forms do not. May we have a debate on sixth-form colleges, and which Department does the right hon. Gentleman think should respond to such a debate?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise an immediate debate, although I must say that in due course such a debate would be useful and would be appreciated not least by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), in whose constituency are two very successful sixth-form colleges at Hills road and Long road. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) makes a very important point, and I hope that we can take it up at some point. If we had a debate specifically about sixth-form college teaching up to A-level, it would be the responsibility of the Department for Education to respond, but if the debate related specifically to apprenticeships and skills-based learning, it would engage the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Ian Swales Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

I am not sure that the answer to the question is “823—and counting—appointed politicians who legislate” either, so I am sorry to have to disagree slightly with the hon. Lady. The important principle is that when changes of this importance are being decided, the British people should have a say.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady remind the House of whether her party had a referendum on the removal of 550 hereditary peers from the Lords?

[Ms Eagle]

That was part 1 of a reform; it was an interim arrangement. I think that once we get to a stage where elections are being introduced and our institutions are being changed for good, a referendum is appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sheerman]

I was trying to be kind to the Liberal Democrats, but obviously it has not worked.

By their own lights, the Liberal Democrats are trying to do something about the malaise in our political culture. The rest of us, in the other political parties, have to recognise that there is something deeply wrong with the levels of participation and democratic activity.

[Ian Swales]

This is not a Liberal Democrat Bill, but a coalition Government Bill.

[Mr Sheerman]

I understand that perfectly. I know the system and what the coalition Government are about, and I sympathise with the position that the two parties are in. They have to work together and make these agreements, and they are having a problem at the moment, but the fact is, as we all know, that the Liberal Democrats have persuaded the Conservatives to include certain things in the coalition agreement.

I want to look back over my time as an elected representative in this House. We have had more constitutional change in this Chamber in the past 30 years than at any other time in the history of our country, and everyone has become an expert on the constitution. The previous speaker, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), is an expert on the constitution. We have had many experts on the constitution. I can remember when people on both sides said that referendums were not British, and I can remember criticising the first referendum on membership of the European Union promoted by Tony Benn. I called it, “Tony Benn out of Benito Mussolini”, because dictators love referendums. They are a way out of the problems of weak leadership. The House does not need referendums for everything.

The Bill could have been amended to constitute a positive reform of the House of Lords. There is no need for an elected Lords filled with party apparatchiks similar to those down here. The danger of the Bill is not that the other place will get strong and flex its muscles and that we will become weaker; my concern is that it will simply become a pale and timid shadow of this place. Nobody wants that. I want a strong, reformed upper House. With the time and the opportunity, we could have reached an agreement on an all-party basis, but tonight I will not be voting for Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

It is indeed important to establish a consensus. I will come to that crucial point.

It is also important to have a comprehensive view of how our constitution must change, but the essential point is that the Government’s proposals will, I believe, result in the two Chambers of Parliament being locked in endless conflict, resulting in government grinding to a halt. That is not in the interests of democracy.

Members have raised a wide range of other concerns in this debate. A number expressed concerns about the issue of hybridity. Some have expressed bewilderment at why the Liberal Democrats favour it when they argued for a wholly elected Chamber in their manifesto. However, as a number of Labour Members have pointed out—they include my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty)—we are, after all, talking about the Liberal Democrats, and principle is not one of their strong points. I will make an offer to the Liberal Democrats tonight. I say to them: work with us and we will support you in working for what is in the Liberal Democrat manifesto—a fully elected second Chamber.

Members have expressed concerns today about the voting system, and about the particular kind of proportional representation that is being proposed. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds referred to the weakness of the d’Hondt system. Many Members are also perturbed about the proposed size of the second Chamber, and the proposal for part-time and full-time Members. Then there is the cost. The Government were reluctant to come forward with accurate figures, but we know that reform will not be cheap.

Significantly, a number of Members have already begun to dig down into the details of the Bill. They have expressed their unease about ministerial appointments and about the vagueness of the Government’s intentions. Several Members have also questioned the complex transitional arrangements that would take us from 2015 to 2025, but one of the biggest concerns that Members have expressed relates to the single, non-renewable, 15-year terms. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) made a powerful case in favour of such terms, but other Members made the point that only an accountable system can be fully democratic. It is said that if there is no re-election, there can be no accountability, and the House clearly needs to examine that issue in greater detail.

In the course of this excellent two-day debate, hon. Members have pinpointed with accuracy and passion the wide range of complex and important issues that we, as legislators, have a duty to get right. As we have heard time and again from Members on both sides of the House, a major constitutional change such as this requires a referendum. As we all know, referendums have been held on devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. They have also been held on proposals for a Mayor of London and a Greater London assembly. There was a referendum to decide whether there should be an assembly for the north-east of England, and a referendum last year on the alternative vote system. There have been referendums on whether to have mayors in nearly 50 towns and cities, and on whether the Welsh Assembly should have more powers. There was even a referendum in Wales on the opening of pubs on Sundays, yet the Deputy Prime Minister says that there cannot be a referendum on the most important constitutional change in 100 years.

[Ian Swales]

Will the shadow Minister tell us whether there was a referendum on the House of Lords Act 1999?

[Wayne David]

I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman by making two points. First, that was hardly a profound constitutional change. Secondly, the provisions were in our manifesto, and we implemented them.

Let us not forget that the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill came to a forceful conclusion. The last paragraph of its report states:

“The Committee recommends that, in view of the significance of the constitutional change brought forward for an elected House of Lords, the Government should submit the decision to a referendum.”

That was the unanimous view of the Joint Committee. We heard yesterday that the Deputy Prime Minister had accepted some of the Committee’s recommendations. That is to be welcomed, but we have to question why he did not accept its most powerful recommendation. Surely it cannot be the case that he favours referendums only when it suits him.

The Government have claimed that there is no need for a referendum because Lords reform was in all three party manifestos. It is true that a commitment to Lords reform was in our manifesto, along with a promise to hold a referendum on the matter. It was also in the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto. I respectfully point out—[Interruption.] No doubt the Chancellor has come to say sorry, Mr Speaker. I respectfully ask the Deputy Prime Minister, who has obviously had someone come in to give him advice, to acknowledge that we need consensus. I believe that that is true; we do need consensus for Lords reform. That is said in the Conservative party manifesto, which brings me to my next point.

Important constitutional change can be brought about only through consensus. That was the view of the last Labour Government and it is our view today. Despite repeated offers by us to work with the Government to establish common ground, those overtures have been greeted with a deathly silence. That is a great shame, but it helps explain why this Bill is seen by so many as partisan.

Finally, this has been an interesting and indeed historic couple of days. There is a lack of clarity about where we go from here. I look forward to hearing the Minister provide that clarity, but I say to the House that Labour Members stand ready to be positive and to work effectively for reform of the second House, and I hope that the Government will respond to our positiveness.

Business of the House

Ian Swales Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The Glasgow tourist board may be in touch with the hon. Gentleman about his rather disparaging remarks about the weather in that great city. There is an issue about drought, however. We have had one drought summit and there will be another in May. There is a drought group in the relevant Department, and we are taking steps to conserve water, and, where feasible, to move water from those areas in surplus to those in shortage. I cannot promise a debate between now and Prorogation, but perhaps in the new Session, depending on what happens to the weather in between, we may have an opportunity to revisit this.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

The day after the first tonne of steel was made at Redcar’s reopened steel works, I am sure the Leader of the House will join me in congratulating operators SSI. Will he find time for a debate on the vital issue of energy costs for our energy-intensive industries, such as steel?

Business of the House

Ian Swales Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman will know that under the previous Administration there was a Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. When it reported in 1999, it recommended that failure to appear before a Select Committee should be a criminal offence. The Administration whom he supported never took that Committee’s recommendations forward. We are committed to introducing a draft privilege Bill that will be based on the recommendations of the 1999 Joint Committee report. I therefore hope that we can begin to find a solution to the uncertainty to which he refers.

In reference to an earlier question, I am advised that it is doubtful whether the House can any longer impose a fine; this was last done in 1666. However, that could be addressed in the draft Bill.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

In areas as diverse as energy-intensive industries and children with myalgic encephalomyelitis, the issues cross two or more Departments, whereas debates are traditionally answered by one Department. Will the Leader of the House investigate how cross-departmental issues can be better covered by this House in future?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman may know that in the last Parliament, we had cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall. The issues that he raises might therefore be dealt with by the House. I think I am right to say that that experiment was not an outstanding success and that that is why it lapsed. It might be worth looking at again, and perhaps the Procedure Committee or the Backbench Business Committee could do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Swales Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

We regularly have discussions with the operators on the advertised broadband speeds that they put out. As Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority have made clear, it is very important that broadband operators should be clear about what speeds are available. However, I am happy to pursue further the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Is the Minister aware that in many parts of the country broadband access is quite good in domestic premises, because the roll-out of cable TV has dealt with domestic problems, but often very poor in commercial premises in high streets and business parks?

[Mr Vaizey]

Yes. It is important to emphasise that even in an area where, in theory, superfast broadband already exists, there will still be patches where the broadband connections are not as good. That is why we have set aside such a substantial sum of money to help with the roll-out of broadband.