Bullying and Harassment: Cox Report

James Duddridge Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She was an absolutely core and integral part of the working group, as, likewise, was her hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) on the steering group. They know as well as I do that this was the result of an enormous amount of cross-party collaboration to come up with the right ideas, to hear from all those who work in this place who have had bad experiences and find out what they would like to see changed. We had a trade union representative on the steering group who had very useful input. We have had staff members at all levels. We have always sought to take soundings from right across the House.

I will answer the hon. Lady’s specific questions. On whether we should have an ongoing staff panel, she will know that the review after six months, which will begin in January, will include staff members. Likewise, the review after 18 months will include staff members. It will be for that second review to decide how frequently subsequent reviews should take place. The hon. Lady says that Dame Laura criticised the introduction of the scheme before the publication of her report. She will know that the working group agreed that we would not delay further on the grounds that, as her hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) pointed out in his urgent question, people had already waited for almost nine to 10 months before they could come forward. With no clear date for Dame Laura’s report, it was not right to wait still further. Nevertheless, Dame Laura’s report will absolutely be fed in as a key piece of evidence to the review at six months, which, as I say, starts in January.

The hon. Lady asked about whether we will be looking at other organisations. She will know that we did look at other organisations all the way through the process of putting together the complaints procedure, and we will continue to do so.

This is a matter for the House. All hon. Members who have an interest in bringing forward further recommendations and suggestions should be aware that every party has a representative on the working group or the steering group. They should let their views be known so that they can be taken into account to get the best possible arrangements.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

This is a disturbing report, which identifies a number of unacceptable behaviours. Page 64 lists some of them: taunting, mocking and mimicking; deliberately belittling in front of other Members; making offensive personal comments about appearance; belittling someone’s junior status; and making lengthy and humiliating tirades of criticism and abuse in front of colleagues. How can we encourage Mr Speaker to stop this behaviour?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend will know that there are differing views about the implications of Dame Laura’s report. She is essentially urging all hon. Members to allow senior management to consider not only their own views on their own involvement, but what action needs to be taken by senior management to ensure that change is forthcoming.

Business of the House

James Duddridge Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

“Dear Pot… Yours, Kettle” springs to mind. The hon. Lady asked me to be swifter in making the business statement and then said that she would waffle on for ever—and she did.

The hon. Lady asks about the business that was discussed, and I made it very clear that I aim to bring back the very important Brexit legislation within weeks. She will know that in this place discussions take place and the business is announced through very long-standing conventions through the usual channels, and that is indeed the case on this occasion. There has been no announcement to any committee through any private meeting. There has not been any announcement.

Secondly, the hon. Lady asks about the customs arrangements, and she will be aware that the discussions are ongoing. The Government have been very clear that we are seeking the best possible deal for the United Kingdom and for our EU friends and neighbours as we leave the European Union. That we will continue to do. It means that we are constantly considering the best alternatives with the best information that is available at the time. We will continue to do that, because, rather than playing politics with it, trying to score points day in, day out and undermining the will of the people, the Government are determined to ensure that we get the best possible deal that we can.

The hon. Lady asks about the economy, and she suggests that it is struggling, so she might like to welcome the fact that employment is up to another record high, unemployment is down to a 40-year low, real wages are rising, and UK exports rose by nearly 10% in the last year to a new record high. She might like to welcome the fact that the highest growth in investment spending in the G7 last year came to the United Kingdom. She might like to welcome the fact that our day-to-day spending is in surplus for the first time in 16 years, and certainly since her Government were in power in 2001 and 2002. She might also like to welcome the lowest net borrowing in over a decade. I am sure that she will not welcome any of those things, but what we on this side of the House focus on is giving more people the security of a job and a pay packet to give themselves and their families a better life.

Also, the hon. Lady talks about inequality and how unfair life is, and she might like to welcome the national living wage, introduced by this Government. Last month, we increased the national living wage by 4.4%—inflation busting and the equivalent of an annual pay rise of more than £2,000 for a full-time worker since its introduction. She might like to welcome the fact that basic rate taxpayers are £1,000 better off than in 2010 as a direct result of our changes to the personal tax-free allowance. She might also like to welcome the fact that the basic state pension is now more than £1,450 a year higher than it was in 2010. But as I say, I do not expect the hon. Lady to welcome the real improvements in people’s lives under a Conservative Government that balances the need to keep the economy in good shape with the ability to pay for public services.

The hon. Lady asks about the legislative programme. What I can say to her is that 31 Bills have been introduced so far, 17 of which have been sent for Royal Assent. Hundreds of statutory instruments have been passed by each House. Seven draft Bills have been published and there are six Brexit Bills before Parliament at this time. That is not by any means a small legislative programme. Perhaps the hon. Lady simply has not noticed.

As for the post office counter, as I said last week to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), I am delighted to take up the issue of its opening times. I have already asked the chief executive of the House authorities to respond to Members who want to raise the issue and to ensure that when services to Members are under question, consultation takes place with all Members. I hope that I have answered all the hon. Lady’s lengthy questions.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

May we have a debate on how the independent complaints procedure for this House is progressing?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that Members continue to work very hard cross-party on building an independent complaints procedure that will genuinely change the culture in this place for the better, making sure that everybody, right across the Palace of Westminster—whoever they are and whatever job they do—will be treated with the courtesy, dignity and respect which is their due.

Business of the House

James Duddridge Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

First, the hon. Lady asks about progress of Brexit legislation. Third Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will take place in the other House next week, and then we will bring that Bill back to this place, to look at the amendments. The Government are obviously looking closely at the proposals made in the other House, as we have done with all those made in this House. Other Brexit Bills will be coming forward in due course. There is no hold-up. As all hon. Members will appreciate, very complex negotiations are under way, and it is right that we bring forward these Bills at the appropriate time, as indeed we will do.

The hon. Lady asks about voter ID. Voter ID was successfully tested at the local elections on 3 May in five local authorities, each of which had signed up to it. The data so far and statements by the respective returning officers point towards the pilots successfully testing voter ID and the experience being overwhelmingly positive. It is important to note that it cannot be the case that we have to provide ID to pick up a parcel but not to cast our democratic vote. It is vital that we protect our democracy from potential fraud, and we will obviously look at all lessons learned from that.

The hon. Lady asked about the Home Secretary’s email address. I am not sure that that is within my brief, but if email addresses now come under the remit of the Leader of the House, I am happy to take that up if she writes to me about it.

The hon. Lady asked about statutory instruments that the Opposition have prayed against. It is parliamentary convention that, where a reasonable request for a debate is made, time will be allowed for a debate, and in line with that, the Government have sought to accommodate reasonable requests from the Opposition. There have been a couple of debates on statutory instruments only this week, and more Government time has been given for debates on statutory instruments prayed against by the Opposition than at any time since 1997. I hope she will acknowledge that the Government are doing everything they can to accommodate Opposition views.

The hon. Lady asked about the issue of racism in Pendle. I am horrified to hear that story, and I certainly share her absolute rejection of any form of racism. As I understand it, direct action was taken—suspension, training, apologies and so on—but I am not completely aware of the situation. I am sure she will acknowledge that if people who do something in very bad taste have received their punishment, they should be capable of being reinstated. I am not sure of the case, but like her, I utterly reject any form of racism.

Finally, the hon. Lady asked about restoration and renewal. We have a House of Commons Commission meeting on Monday evening, where there will be further discussions. I am always happy to update the House, and perhaps we can discuss how we can facilitate that.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, given your manifesto commitment to go by 22 June, may we have a debate in Government time about what we want from a Speaker and what type of Speaker we want, before we move to a secondary discussion about who we want to replace you?

[Andrea Leadsom]

Mr Speaker, you have served this House for a good number of years, in the best way that you can, and I am grateful to you for that. I am not sure that a debate on the subject that my hon. Friend suggests would be at all welcome.

Treatment of House of Commons Staff

James Duddridge Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank the shadow Leader of the House for what she has said, and I am grateful to her for the part that she played in the working group on setting up an independent complaints procedure. It was notable that there was unanimous support for the establishment of the procedure, and I think the whole House can be very pleased about that.

The hon. Lady asked whether I was aware of specific formal complaints. Consideration of specific complaints was not in the terms of reference of the working group; in fact, it was specifically excluded. In my role as Leader of the House, I have had a number of people come forward to me, and I sought to deal, as I can, wherever possible, with complaints that have been brought to me, but I do not propose to discuss any specific allegations in the Chamber.

The hon. Lady asked about a review of the Respect policy for House staff. In his letter sent to House staff today, the Clerk of the House says:

“there are unresolved issues over bullying and harassment, including sexual harassment, which need to be addressed…we will revisit and renew the Respect policy.”

The hon. Lady asked whether the House authorities trade union representative would be invited to join the steering group. I believe that that has already happened—he has been invited to join the steering group. She asked when the procedures would be finalised. At the first meeting of the steering group last week, we set an aspiration that the bulk of the work should be done within three months. There will be a final vote in the House on necessary changes in Standing Orders, and on the adoption of the behaviour code. We hope and expect that that will happen before the House rises for the summer recess.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Is it appropriate for Mr Speaker to remain in his place when there are allegations against him, which he is trying to suppress, using taxpayers’ funds, by sending letters through Speaker’s Counsel?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think it vital for all colleagues to join together in supporting the efforts being made by the House to stamp out all bullying and harassment wherever we see it, and to ensure that in future everyone will be treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve.

Electoral Commission

James Duddridge Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I will be brief, because I know that the House wants to move on quickly.

I oppose the motion. The Electoral Commission is an incredibly important body, and I ask Members to reflect on why the issue has been brought to the House. It is because it is for the full House to make a decision, rather than relying on our Front Benchers and the official channels.

I do not believe that Sir Ian Kennedy would be an appropriate appointment to the Electoral Commission. This gentleman is 76 now; he would be 80 at the end of his term. When he served on the Health Commission, he claimed £15,000 on taxis from north London to the job. Although our expenses system desperately needed to be reformed, I do not think that a single Member thinks that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is a system lacking in bureaucracy that could not be well reformed. I do not think he did a good job there. The Electoral Commission requires somebody who understands politics. All its existing members either understand politics—and he does not get that—or understand the media and have an idea of how to project the commission’s broader work. We are being asked to vote on this motion because we can legitimately have an opinion. I believe that that opinion should be that he is not a fit and proper person to serve, and I ask Members to vote in the No Lobby this evening.

Business of the House

James Duddridge Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

That was a tour de force, covering a range of areas, and I thank the hon. Lady for it. To deal specifically with her first question about the order of business, only this morning I received a note from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) pointing out that in last week’s business questions he had asked for time to discuss the Gibb report, which the Government were pleased to give as many colleagues have raised the issue with us, and so, as I understand it, he will withdraw his request for time in Westminster Hall. I hope that that is a happy outcome for all colleagues who want to discuss the severe problems that many rail commuters have had with Southern and on other railways too.

I join the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and send commiserations from this side of the House to the Scottish National party and all the friends and family of Gordon Wilson, a man who really did serve his country well. On the subject of the unveiling of the plaque for Jo Cox, I also thank Mr Speaker for the wonderful opportunity of being in the state apartments yesterday with the Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness, which is a subject dear to my heart. I have a project in my own constituency to bring communities together through coffee mornings to try to stem the tide of loneliness, and all hon. Members should be delighted that in Jo Cox’s memory we will renew our efforts to tackle it.

I also add my congratulations to those of the hon. Lady to the staff of the Parliamentary Digital Service. They really did work 24/7 over the weekend to protect us, and the great news is that they achieved that. As I understand it, they did about six months’ IT development work in three days, so they have put us in a stronger position than we were in before. I know that all colleagues will want to send their thanks for how they dealt with that and prevented serious harm from being done.

On restoration and renewal, the Commissions of both Houses are looking at the proposals and at what is to be done, and we hope to make some announcements in due course.

The hon. Lady then moved on to her opposition to the Government and her sense that it is not a legitimate Government, but I would point out that the Conservatives won the general election. It is not only our right but our constitutional duty, in the interests of the country, to bring forward a strong Government with support from colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party.

The Government have a very strong programme to achieve a successful Brexit that will create jobs and opportunity and will be a global force for free trade, but we also intend to introduce measures to improve and restore good mental health in this country, to make real the issue of parity of esteem, and to protect people from domestic violence and from stalkers. That is very important social legislation. Our economic programme, too, will build some of the industries of tomorrow, to make this country a world leader in electric vehicle technology, in autonomous vehicles and, of course, in space flight—building spaceports and being at the heart of new satellite technology, which is absolutely vital for the devolved Administrations. Finally, on the subject of security and keeping people safe—the first duty of Government—we will introduce more measures to stamp out extremism and enhance global working on counter-terrorism. Those are many good and worthwhile pieces of legislation that I hope all colleagues will be able to support.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

May we have time for a debate on accident and emergency services, specifically those in Southend, to assure constituents that any decision on A&E will be clinically led?

Deregulation Bill

James Duddridge Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid that I do not have figures to hand on accidents relating to trams in England and Wales, but I will write to my right hon. Friend on that subject. I assume that any investigation of an accident would assess its causes—for instance, if it involved a vehicle driving on to the tramlines—and would make recommendations about how to deal with such issues.

Government new clause 25 relates to changes in the use of CCTV for issuing parking tickets by post. The Government are concerned that the use of CCTV for on-street parking is no longer proportionate, and that local councils over-employ it to deal with contraventions when it would be more appropriate and fair for such contraventions to be handled by a civil enforcement officer. We have therefore committed ourselves to ban the use of CCTV for on-street parking enforcement. That was announced in September and re-stated in December 2013 as part of a package of measures designed to support high streets.

Under existing measures, when a CCTV camera is used by a civil enforcement officer to identify a parking offence, a penalty charge notice can be issued to the offender by post. In practice, that means that drivers may receive a parking ticket through the post several weeks after an incident, which makes it difficult to challenge the alleged contravention.

The Government are concerned that a proliferation of CCTV cameras for offences such as parking may undermine public acceptance of their wider beneficial use. To introduce the change, we need to amend legislation to prevent local authorities from relying so heavily on CCTV for parking enforcement.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that the new clause relates to parking, but will he confirm that CCTV cameras can still be used for issuing fines via the post for other offences, such as parking on zig-zag lines in front of schools?

[Tom Brake]

I will come on to that point in a few moments.

New clause 25 will amend part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 to prevent the automatic issuing by post of fines for parking offences, and instead require that notification of penalty charges is given by a notice attached to the vehicle.

The new clause includes a wider power to cater for an outright ban on CCTV if that is considered necessary in future. However, the Government intend to protect the use of CCTV cameras where there is a strong safety argument for doing so. Their use will therefore be banned in all but the following limited circumstances: when stopped in restricted areas outside a school; when stopped where prohibited on a red route or clearway; when parked where prohibited in a bus lane; or when stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

Before the Minister moves on, will he confirm when the power will come into effect, and what will happen to councils that perhaps have a longer-term contract with a provider that falls outside the period?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is a very good point, which I think it would be more appropriate to respond to in writing. Clearly, there may well be contractual issues. If local authorities have entered into contracts for, say, a five-year period, there may be implications, so rather than giving him an off-the-cuff response, I will write to him on that point.

Amendment 61 would remove from the Bill the three clauses that relate to taxis and private hire vehicles. That is not a course of action that the Government intend to adopt. On the contrary, we consider that the taxi and private hire vehicle clauses will have significant benefits, both in terms of cost savings for the trade and convenience for passengers, and we are determined to see those benefits realised.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

I always tell my constituents not to believe everything that is in the papers, but Guido Fawkes carried a number of stories in an online blog about the unions lobbying on these issues and financial interconnections between members of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition and the unions on this matter. Was there any evidence behind those rumours and is there anything to be declared?

[Mr Marsden]

Not on my part, I do not think; I think the only thing to be declared is the hon. Gentleman’s attempt to pursue something on a blog that, as various people know, may or may not have some foundation. In this case, it obviously does not have much foundation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marsden]

As my hon. Friends ask from a sedentary position, “How do you know?” I could also talk about the transfer of these licences but, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, this is about resources and enforcement. The truth is that we would not know.

The proposed measures might damage the entire legitimate taxi industry, too. Greater Manchester’s police and crime commissioner has said that there is a clear danger that they will lead to an increase in unlicensed private hire drivers taking business illegitimately and that the measures are a backward step for law enforcement. I say again that this move is unnecessary. Why have the Government not listened to the Law Commission, which led an extensive consultation on a complex issue, receiving 3,000 written responses from across the trade? The process involved a series of 84 meetings over four months, an industry survey and meetings—one of which I attended at Blackpool cricket club—where scores of taxi drivers all put useful points. Why have the Government ploughed ahead with these reforms? Was the review simply a waste of money?

My next point deals with the one made by the right hon. Gentleman. Ministers would also let minicab operators subcontract a job to firms in another area, which means the customer booking the taxi could not be sure of the individual or the firm picking them up. Customers would lose their right to select a firm based on a strong reputation for safety. Many vulnerable people may start to lose confidence in their travelling habits if they do not believe they have a safe cab company whose services they can rely on. These proposals also have implications further down the line, for the supply chain in taxis and cabs. We are talking about things being made in the UK, with jobs and livelihoods provided in the UK, and a valuable force for social cohesion. That force will be under threat if the general public lose confidence in the methods of regulation and licensing.

[James Duddridge]

In Southend, I have a regular contract with AC Taxis, as it is convenient; the firm is a good supplier and well trusted in the area. If it had to outsource some of its work, I would expect it, as a reputable firm, to outsource to another reputable firm. It may well outsource to Rochford Taxis, also an excellent supplier, but I would not expect it to go to a random firm to contract out the work. The company would be protecting its reputation, and it would be in its interest to behave in a decent and good way.

[Mr Marsden]

The hon. Gentleman is right about that, and he is right to defend the reputation of the company he has had dealings with and knows to be reputable. However, the basis on which we have to proceed in legislation is not what the best would do, but what the worst might do. That is the point I am trying to make. The Law Commission has made it clear that any such arrangements would need to be subject to enforcement officers having the ability to impound vehicles and issue penalties in other areas, so that jobs could be passed between firms more accountably.

The taxi and minicab hire industry in this country is locally and closely regulated by councils, which is where regulation should stay. At the moment, minicabs and taxis can, quite rightly, be driven only by someone who has undergone criminal, medical and background checks by the local authority. By trying to micro-manage the changes from Whitehall, the Government risk jeopardising people’s safety. Members here are quite right to emphasise issues such as women using taxis late at night. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust commented on the proposals, saying that it knows, from the sexual assaults on women each year, that posing as a legitimate minicab driver is what some particularly dangerous sexual predators do. The trust stated that

“moves to allow any individual to drive licensed minicab when it is ‘off duty’ will provide greater opportunity for those intent on preying on women in this way. We are also concerned about the proposal to require licensing authorities to renew licenses on a three-year basis rather than annually, should they wish to: we think that checks on drivers should be as rigorous and frequent as necessary”.

That is what we think as well. It is also what the Local Government Association and the police and crime commissioner for Northumberland, Vera Baird, have said. Sixteen police and crime commissioners from all political parties and none have gone on record to voice their opposition to the process and the proposals that have resulted. Incidentally, they include three former Members of this House: Tony Lloyd, Vera Baird and Jane Kennedy.

There is real anger from people who feel that their voices have been ignored in the process. Government guidance on consultation stresses the importance of adequate time and engagement and transparency with key stakeholders, yet Ministers settled for a short period of consultation to give them a cloak for enacting these controversial and piecemeal reforms. As I have said, the Government would dilute the safety checks by ending mandatory minicab licence renewal. As we have seen all too often, the Government pay lip service to localism, but when they want to beef up their so-called red-tape challenge, any mention of localism goes out of the window. What we then get, as we have with this proposal, is clodhopping centralism, dreamed up in short order to fit their soundbites, ignoring the concerns of all those who have looked at the matter in depth, and posing real safety concerns for people, not least women, who use taxis and private hire vehicles especially at night. I urge all Members who take seriously the safety of our roads and the vulnerable passengers in our community to back this amendment and to delete these clauses.

Finally, I come to amendment 1, which would amend clause 35. Today, the House has an opportunity to change these ill-conceived and potentially dangerous plans to row back the rights of seafarers and their families as they seek to find answers to the causes of marine accidents, and to learn lessons that could save lives. I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say, and felt that he was, from time to time, straining to convince himself rather than the rest of us. He said that hard cases make bad law, which is perfectly correct. Although I shall refer to the MV Derbyshire, it is not the simple thrust of why we have made this proposal. He said that he would be convinced—he used the words “would be”—that the Government’s proposals are adequate. The truth is that it is not good enough for any individual to be convinced that the Government’s proposals are good enough; it is important to have a framework that ensures they are good enough. The Minister said that hard cases make bad law, but I say, having heard him draw on examples from 100 years ago and beyond to the time of the Titanic, that ludicrous examples make bad argument. No one has, at any stage, proposed such a distance in time.

Clause 35 seeks to abolish the duty that obliges the Secretary of State automatically to order that a marine accident investigation case be reheard. This duty was enshrined in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which followed years of campaigning by unions and the families of those affected by accidents at sea. A number of serious maritime incidents demonstrate how important this duty is. The causes of major incidents involving great loss of life have sometimes been found on the second investigation and after some time. That, of course, includes shipwrecks, which are often discovered following painstaking research and the physical trawling of the seabed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

The Minister shows a lack of understanding of what is considered poisonous by many in households across the country, and that goes with a lack of understanding of what the country actually needs to improve the situation of working people.

When the Bill was introduced to Parliament, Ministers estimated that it would save business £10 million over 10 years—20p for each and every business in the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) observed on Second Reading:

“It takes four fifths of a second for the British economy…to generate that potential saving”.—[Official Report, 3 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 97.]

Over the weekend, the Prime Minister’s enterprise adviser, Lord Young said:

“Of course there’s a cost of living crisis”,

so it has taken him four years to come round from “They’ve never had it so good,” to “Of course there’s a cost of living crisis.” We Opposition Members have been saying it for years, and I hope the Prime Minister will now listen.

We need a Bill to help businesses that cannot get the finance they need and to help people who are struggling with energy bills and the cost of living. Families have lost £1,600 a year since the general election, yet this Bill, by its own estimate, will benefit each person in this country by 18p. I think Britain deserves better. It deserves better than a Bill contrived to meet the Prime Minister’s vainglorious goal to leave government, come what may, with fewer regulations than when he entered government—not fewer zero-hours contracts, not fewer youth unemployed, but simply fewer regulations.

On its way through the House, we have seen various measures tacked on to the Bill. Despite a comprehensive and ongoing process of scrutiny of the area, we had three new clauses rammed into the Bill over a 10-day consultation and far too much that we could not discuss today. We had 49 minutes to debate 43 amendments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) put it: there is certainly much that we will need to return to in the other place.

[James Duddridge]

Given the need to return to the subject a number of times, would the hon. Lady support an annual deregulation Bill, perhaps driven off the back of Law Commission work? I know from having served on the Joint Committee over 11 months ago that there seem to be a number of other issues that the Government have not been able to include even at late notice, but that should be included in future.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

James Duddridge Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. My issue with his concern is that that terminology is used in PPERA, which has been around for 13 years. One would therefore have expected such concerns to have emerged in the past 13 years, and seeing as they have not, I am reasonably confident that they will not emerge by 2015 either.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that the Government are in listening mode on these issues. Given that Government Members often accuse Labour Members of listening too much to trade unions, I was particularly interested to hear that the Deputy Leader of the House and the Department have been listening to the TUC with regard to the annual conference, so perhaps they are not exempt from lobbying by the unions. The issue of the annual conference is obviously one for the main political parties and some of the minor political parties plus the TUC. Is there a list of defined organisations for these annual conferences?

[Tom Brake]

I am not aware of a list of defined organisations. If hon. Members look at the list of third-party organisations that registered in 2010 and 2005 they might be able to draw some conclusions about which annual conferences I have in mind.

As I have said, the Government believe that the amendments provide the clarity and reassurance that charities, voluntary organisations and the Electoral Commission have sought. We are aware that campaigners will want to understand how to comply with the provisions of the regulatory regime as amended by the Bill. Just as it has for previous elections, the independent regulator, the Electoral Commission, will develop and produce guidance to inform campaigners what expenditure it is likely to consider to be regulated or not regulated. The Government stand ready to support this work.

Amendment 101, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), seeks, along broadly similar lines to Government amendment 32, to revise the definition of “for election purposes” to be activity which can reasonably be regarded as promoting or procuring the success of a party or candidate. However, the amendment would also introduce a new primary purpose test, which the Government cannot support. Such a test would be likely to create greater regulatory uncertainty and an obvious avenue for avoidance activity that could fatally undermine these rules, which are supported in principle by the hon. Gentleman’s party.

The concerns of campaigners and the Electoral Commission on the introduction of the draft Bill was that the revised language was untested and caused uncertainty. Our purpose in reverting to the original PPERA test is to address those concerns by reintroducing a test with which the commission and campaigners are familiar, and on which the commission has existing guidance and experience. Introducing a new and untested primary purpose test would completely undermine those benefits. Rather than having the clear test of whether the expenditure can be reasonably regarded as intended to promote electoral success there would be two tests: can it be so regarded and is it also the primary purpose? The opportunity for uncertainty and legal challenge would only be increased by the following questions. What is the primary purpose of your campaign? Is it to promote the issue or to promote those who support your issue? That is an additional test which does nothing to provide the clarity that campaigners say they want.

Perhaps more damaging is the opportunity for avoidance. The primary purpose of an environmental organisation’s advertising campaign might be claimed to be to recruit new members and encourage donations, but it might also urge support for its preferred party. It may be said that the primary purpose is to protect animal welfare, but that may be done only by encouraging support for particular candidates. Those are activities that are and ought to be regulated. The primary purpose test would drive a coach and horses through the legislation. Groups carrying out these activities have previously undertaken campaigning as recognised third parties, which is perfectly appropriate: they can campaign without restrictions. Under the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, however, all could be potentially excluded from registration. The Government have responded to concerns from the Electoral Commission and other groups that the test for controlled expenditure needs to be clear. The amendment would introduce unwanted uncertainty for campaigners.

The amendment would also create a loophole in the law that third parties could use as an avenue for avoidance and that would undermine the regulatory regime. That is not just my or the Government’s view. The Electoral Commission has expressed concerns that the amendment would introduce a new subjective element test which could lead to significant regulatory difficulty. It has also stated that it does not support an exemption for charities from these rules. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

James Duddridge Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Is not my right hon. Friend missing the elephant in the room, which is the fact that only two organisations spent over the £377,000 cap? The first, by quite a long way, was Unison. The reason why there is agitation on the Opposition Benches is that they do not like having political expenditure limits on political parties on account of their own parent organisations, the trade unions?

[Mr Lansley]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is accurate because at the last election, relatively few organisations—only two, I think—spent a sum of money that was above the proposed limit. It is conceivable that a whole range of organisations might try to spend large amounts of money to influence directly votes for candidates and political parties rather than campaigning on policies and issues. It is important—election law already provides for this—that elections are fought essentially between political parties, and the expenditure undertaken to support candidates of political parties should be authorised by them. That is why many people donate to political parties to support the campaign at a constituency level.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) and for St Albans (Mrs Main). I do not necessarily agree with everything they said, but at least they have been thoughtful and have a good idea of what they are talking about. A number of my Opposition colleagues have also made very good speeches.

We have to agree that not all lobbyists are bad. As Members of Parliament, we get a lot of information from lobbyists that we use to our benefit. There is no way that I, as a member of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, could see every person who wants a meeting with me, but I try to meet those who will shed a light on whatever idea the Committee is talking about at the time. We use that information when we talk to Ministers and that is how it should be.

I do not believe that the Bill gives us transparency. It is very narrow and I think that an idea was formed somewhere along the line about how it could be used. Although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) that it is a bad Bill, I also think that there must be a reason why these things are being done. These people are not idiots—they know what they are doing and there must be a reason behind it. Although the Bill is a bad Bill, I believe that its purpose is to stop my party winning the next election. If last week’s vote on Syria had gone a different way—I am glad to say that it did not—would that have been because third parties had lobbied us to support the Government in what they were trying to do?

We suffered as a party in the 2005 election when the coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, picked up a lot of votes on the back of an anti-war vote. Their support slackened off, as we saw when we got to the 2010 election. I believe that the Bill would have stopped the third parties in 2005 saying, “Don’t vote for a Government who go to war.” I think that worked against us. The Government are not that stupid, and avoiding that is one reason why we have the Bill. We have talked about the rail network and its effect, and the same applies here. The Bill could be used against anything that is anti-Government.

What are we doing? We are talking about registers of interests. Only 1% of those who lobby will be put on a register and the rest would not be on it. Why would that be? Who are we highlighting—the small groups, the individuals and the third-party wee groups who get together occasionally? Why would we want to do that? There must be a reason. Therefore, why are we doing that when we are not tackling the big lobbyists whom we met regularly? Why are they exempt? I ask these questions—I hope that the Minister can answer them—because I have not for the life of me worked out why the Government would want to do this.

[James Duddridge]

For many years, this House has not done enough to tackle lobbying. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) produced a massive Bill that was perhaps more along the lines that the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) requires, but it was too difficult; it bit off too much to chew to be good legislation. One might argue that this Bill is narrow in the wrong places, but is there not an advantage in having a narrow and focused Bill?

[John Robertson]

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, and I believe that he believes what he says. I actually believe that, if we are going to do this, everyone should be included. No one should be exempt, or everyone should be exempt. There is no point in putting a small group on to a register when everyone else can do as they will. If we are going to do it, let us do it right and put everyone on the list, so that we can see who is lobbying and that they meet the criteria.

Previous speakers have said that Ministers will be the only ones who will be covered by this. It is funny that although Members of Parliament were exposed on television for doing something, every time that a Minister was exposed there were always rules governing the fact that they could get away with it. I mentioned that Deloitte has been paying for a member of a Minister’s staff—the Minister is not in his place at the moment—for a number of years, yet Deloitte gets billions of pounds-worth of business from this Government. That has got to be wrong, yet according to all the rules of Parliament, no rule was broken. There is something wrong with that.

The Prime Minister employs someone in No. 10 who is obviously having an effect, but he says, “I have not talked to him on this subject.” Well, he has to talk about something, and I dare say that, whatever was important in Parliament, he was getting advice from that person on it. Whether that person should be allowed to give him that advice and whether he should have been allowed through the doors of No. 10 is another matter—and we need not go back to the matter of the gentleman who was supposedly a journalist who did his bit to try to help the Government to get into power and has now ended up facing court charges.

These things have happened, but people keep getting away with it, and I want to know why. If we are going to have transparency in lobbying, transparency in campaigning and transparency on the trade unions, we must do it right. We should not go off half-cocked and try to attack people whom we do not like politically or whom we particularly disagree with. We should include everyone in a proper manner. We should have proper scrutiny. We should talk to the relevant Select Committees to help us with that scrutiny, and we should not ignore them. Unfortunately, what we see is a Government who want to ignore everything unless it suits them, so the question is why.

Another example is that Volker Beckers, who is the former chief executive officer of npower, has become the chairman of the scrutiny committee of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. During his time as the CEO of npower, it did not pay a penny in tax. How can this happen? Is there no scrutiny of these people? Is no one observing what is happening?

Why has this been allowed to happen? Lack of transparency and lack of knowing what is going on are the cause, and the Leader of the House—unfortunately, he is not in his place—must take responsibility for that. He is the man in charge. If he is not following up these things, they are his fault. He is the man who should fall on his sword, and we should get someone who is willing to do what is required.

We have a voluntary register at the moment. I have never been happy with anything voluntary that is to do with business. I have always believed that the register should be mandatory. Unless we make it mandatory and the process is done in a proper manner that we are happy with as a Parliament, we will end up with the same problems that we have today, and we will still have the same arguments.

Let me register an interest as a member of Unite, although I have not received any money off it for some time—certainly not in this Parliament. That might be because I am not doing a good job—who knows? I like to think I have always been a good trade unionist. I believe in trade unionism. I believe in what trade unions do. I believe that trade unions fight for those who do not have the power to fight for themselves, and I do not believe that unions should be attacked any more than anybody else. It is amazing that we have a register for them. We have members lists but why do we not have a register of members of the Minister’s party? Should we therefore take on the Conservative party and disband it because it does not meet the rules? If we had a mandatory register, that would be the case, and I would be all for it.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson). We agree on the need for the reform of lobbying, but disagree on quite a lot of the detail and the basic principle that I believe in—that taking some action now on a narrow range of issues is better than waiting a very long time to find a piece of perfect legislation that covers and encompasses all the problems that we face on lobbying. We had a Bill before the House that encompassed all those issues, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), and that was rejected in large part because it was too big.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North West mentioned that he no longer receives funding from Unite. Had the union been listening to this speech, I would have said that it was much remiss. Later I will discuss third-party funding. Unite spent £16.9 million in the last general election year. I suggest that some should come the hon. Gentleman’s way next time round.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

To equate a trade union, which is fighting for workers’ rights, minimum wage and rights in the workplace, with big companies that are influencing Government is surely the wrong approach.

[James Duddridge]

I was not linking the two. I was talking about third-party funding and the unions, but I will come back to third-party funding in more detail.

Let me take the Bill chronologically, starting with part 1 on the register of lobbyists. It is an interesting start. I was disappointed that the long title was not written to encapsulate further inclusion of other bodies if there was consensus in the House. On issues of time scale, I deeply regret that the previous Government did not introduce a Bill. I deeply regret that, although it was in the coalition document, we did not have the foresight to start this process earlier, which would have allowed a greater degree of pre-legislative scrutiny, but it is perhaps because the subject is tricky that it has taken the Government so long, rather than their trying to hide something.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain why we are constantly told that there has not been time, when we are three years and some months past the general election? Not just that, but the consultation paper on lobbying was ready well over a year ago. The Select Committee held a substantial investigation into it. It was clear that the proposals did not suit anybody and did not win approval on either side of the argument. It has been a whole year and a bit since the Select Committee reported.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

I gently say to the hon. Lady, 13 years and nothing done, three years and we are doing something, and the Opposition in large part are saying, “We don’t want to do it now,” or “It’s the wrong thing.” It is contradictory. I am not saying that the Bill is perfect, but it is a contradictory position that the Opposition are putting forward.

The second part of the Bill deals with third-party funding. The Leader of the House skirted around the subject a little. I referred to it in an earlier intervention as the elephant in the room—the trade union movement. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West is right to ask why the Government are doing this. Clearly, I have a slightly more benign impression of the Government than do Opposition Members. One can think that natural, but looking at the facts and going through the House of Commons Library research paper, I wanted to know who these third parties were. I shall list some of them.

Unison spent £671 million in the year running up to the general election in 2010. The National Union of Teachers spent £121 million—sorry, £122 million if one rounds up the £100,000. The Public and Commercial Services Union spent £84 million. Unite, which receives a bad press, was not spending very much money at all compared with some of the big guns, at £16 million. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers spent just under £5 million and Wales TUC £4.3 million. That list is not absolutely in order. There are about 20 names and I am less familiar with a number of them, such as Vote for a Change Ltd. I mention it because, under the proposed threshold of £388,000, only it and Unison would have been unable to do what they were already doing, so it is not a major issue.

I also note that 38 Degrees is on the list. It spent either £10.8 million or £10.9 million—I do not know which because of my poor eyesight, but it was a sizable amount. I reflect on the e-mails that I have received about the Bill. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said that it was not just the unions that had written to him, but other constituents more generally. The vast majority of the people who have written to me about the Bill have been from one of the third-party funders: 38 Degrees. It was said earlier that the Wikipedia entry had changed and that the organisation was set up by Labour supporters and members. There is nothing wrong with that, but I think we need transparency.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman might like to take a couple of noughts off his calculations, bearing in mind that the total expenditure by third parties at the last general election was £2.8 million.

[James Duddridge]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct; I was getting carried away—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has asked me to start my speech again. I can list the unions again with the correct figures. For Unison the figure was £671,000, rather than £671 million. For the National Union of Teachers the figure was £121,000. For the Public and Commercial Services Union the figure was £84,000. Those are still enormous amounts of money that, if targeted in individual areas, could have a massive impact.

There is a case for having no limits, but if we have that for charities and unions, perhaps the first organisations that should have no limits are political parties. The House has taken the view, and legislated on it, that we should limit public expenditure. Anyone who has been a student of American politics can very much see why. Colleagues in Congress, when they hear how much we spend in individual constituencies, are dumbfounded at how little money is involved. What we do not want to see in the United Kingdom are political action committees or things of that ilk rising up and campaigning on behalf of or against Governments in the run-up to elections as a proxy service.

Opposition Members disagree about Labour history, so I shall talk about it in trepidation, with great generality. The Labour party is the product of a union movement, and quite rightly that movement recognised that workers needed representation in Parliament because they were not getting a fair crack of the whip or fair representation here, but I gently say that things have moved on. The unions cannot have it both ways: they cannot give birth to an organisation that we accept in this place, and has limits on its expenditure at elections, and then spend large amounts of money themselves on those elections. That strikes me as entirely ridiculous.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I will be asking my hon. Friend to write me a cheque later, given his propensity to add zeros to numbers. Leaving that aside, he is making a very good point. Things have moved on. Is not the Bill, and specifically part 3, just about creating a level playing field? If we care about democracy, is it not right that on neither side of the House and nowhere in this country should big money be able to buy political influence?

[James Duddridge]

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Under no circumstances should politicians on either side of the House prostitute themselves to big money. Time and again that has happened. I shall not be partisan and list 13 years of Ecclestone and so on. Let us take a larger chunk of time. Over the past 100 years all political parties have been guilty, and that demeans this House. A number of colleagues have said that lobbying is an important function. It is, but we need to draw the line between open, transparent lobbying and closed, dirty lobbying that involves buying influence and lots of money.

When I read through part 3, I was quite surprised, given the history of union negotiations and strikes and the importance of numbers and votes, that this basic information is not already available. [Hon. Members: “It is.”] If, as Labour Members say, the information is already available, there is no additional burden so I am sure they will support part 3.

Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)

James Duddridge Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lucas]

For far too short a time, I was a Minister. I got there in the end. I believe that being a Minister benefited my constituents. They understood that being a Minister was an important part of my job as a Member of Parliament. Ministers are also Members of Parliament, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that they in any way diminish themselves as MPs by being Ministers.

The key to the motion is access to MPs. I have not spoken about the hundreds of thousands of pounds that some Government Members earn. [Interruption.] I will not name them, because unlike the Leader of the House I have not given them notice. However, MPs should have a look at the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: a number of Members earn hundreds of thousands of pounds. This issue is about buying access. MPs should look at themselves in the mirror and ask whether they are really so clever that companies, which are engaged in business MPs have no experience in, really want them to join their boards for their personal knowledge and insight. The reality is that companies want privileged access to MPs and are prepared to pay for it.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I know the hon. Gentleman reasonably well. Does he accept that some people take extra jobs based on their experience? For example, I help a small business in Liverpool, which I have known for nearly 20 years. It came to me and said, “Could you help us do what you did for us 15 years ago?” That was the basis on which I took that work. I also found it interesting to travel to Liverpool.

[Ian Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman says he helps that business. I help businesses in my constituency, but I do not get paid for it—that is the key point. I have an equal obligation to all my constituents. I do not allow access to my time to be bought by an individual or a company. We need to support the motion.