Members’ Paid Directorships and Consultancies

John Hemming Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It contains an entry for JHC, which stands for John Hemming & Co., a company I founded in 1983. It currently employs about 260 staff and has a turnover of £20 million. I have declared in the register an income of around £180,000 from that company. I attend a meeting once a month and chair the board meeting. I am a full-time Member of Parliament. I spend five full days during the week and two half days at the weekend on political business. Oddly enough, the motion is so badly drafted that it would not affect me, because the £180,000 I receive is from a partnership, and the motion does not refer to partnerships. Obviously, there is a lot of confusion about equity interest and payment per hour. I spend under four hours a month on the work set out in my declaration of interests.

What do I do? Well, today I met the Latvian Justice Minister, who is concerned about what is happening in the family courts in England as it affects Latvian citizens. I have attended two Select Committee meetings today. I actually sit on five Select Committees, and I probably attend more Delegated Legislation Committees than any other Member of Parliament. Therefore, when it comes to parliamentary activity, I can claim to be as busy in Parliament as one can be. Indeed, one of my colleagues said that he did not think that I had a second job because he always sees me here, and I am here a lot.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

May I ask why the hon. Gentleman decided to donate to charity his income from taking part in ComRes consultations but not to donate income from his other employment?

[John Hemming]

The problem with that question is that the hon. Lady has made an assumption that I do not make other donations to charity. I do make other donations, but they are not set out in my entry in the register. I am sorry, but that claim is basically wrong.

I do a vast amount of casework. I have my advice bureau on Saturdays, and the maximum number I have dealt with is 38 groups of people. Admittedly, that took a little longer than normal, but I see everybody who turns up at my office on a Saturday without an appointment—many colleagues who claim to be full-time Members of Parliament require appointments, but I do not. I have been a full-time politician since 2004, when I was deputy leader of Birmingham city council, which is also a full-time job. From a casework point of view, having dealt with about 30,000 cases of varying complexity since then, I am a full-time MP. I run campaigns about secret imprisonment, term-time absence, parents being prosecuted because their children are ill and dealing with people who leave this country because they are persecuted by the state. That is part of my job as a full-time MP.

I am also a pianist, as is well known. I play the piano at the party conference and later in March I have a gig in my constituency in Birmingham for Macmillan Cancer Support, which is sold out. Admittedly, that will all go to charity. As the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) knows, I play jazz music in various places for charitable purposes. This year we are not raising money jointly for Macmillan at the Palace of Varieties show, but these things still go on.

I have additional business costs because I am an MP, but where is the conflict of interest? There is a conflict of interest for Ministers, because if they vote against the Government they are fined by losing their ministerial salary. That is why Ministers are called the payroll—they are paid extra money by the Government in order to back the Government and vote with the Government, whether they agree with them or not. So it is very clear, with our system of failed separation of powers, that a conflict of interest arises from the second job of being a Minister.

How do my constituents benefit from me? I have a little bit more money, that is true, so I pay beyond parliamentary expenses for a benefits adviser who comes to my office to give specialist benefits advice. I was able to take legal action against the city council to try to get it to clean up the streets, which was good in that it got the council to clean up the streets, but bad in that I was ordered to pay costs against the council. That is being appealed through the courts.

Since 2009 I have claimed no second home expenses and I am the most cost-effective Member of Parliament in Birmingham. I use saver return tickets to get to the House of Commons. That keeps my travel costs low so, although I go between London and Birmingham every week because I live in Birmingham, I am by a long way the cheapest MP in Birmingham in terms of personal expenses.

I deliver for my constituents. I deliver more widely on campaign issues. What is the problem with me spending four hours a month continuing to have an interest in the business that I founded more than 30 years ago, which pays a large amount of tax and provides jobs for 260-plus people?

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Business of the House

John Hemming Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I absolutely join my hon. Friend in wishing Hindus, Sikhs and Jains a healthy and prosperous new year. I enjoyed the event enormously, as I am sure you did, Mr Speaker, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for ensuring its efficient organisation—a tremendously enthusiastic event which reminded us of the immense contribution to this country of all the people represented and all their families and friends. I am not sure we need a debate as I do not think we would disagree about that, but my hon. Friend has done the House a service in reminding us of this.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Yardleys school in my constituency has been closed for three weeks as a result of asbestos contamination from the site next door, where there was a fire in a warehouse. It is an academy school on a private finance initiative site with the local authority as a partner and it is unclear who is responsible for declaring and ensuring that the site is safe. May we have a debate on patterns of responsibility for schools so that we can ensure that the interests of the children are put first and representatives of the school are involved in meetings about the safety of the school?

[Mr Hague]

Well, we can have a debate if my hon. Friend pursues a request in the normal way. This is a matter for Birmingham city council and the school to resolve, but I will draw the attention of my colleagues at the Department for Education to the fact that he has raised the matter, and it is open to him to pursue a debate on it.

Deregulation Bill

John Hemming Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I am repeating myself rather a lot, but I say again that we are not back where we were. I have made it clear that, under our proposals, the MV Derbyshire inquiry would have happened.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) for his support. I was not quite as surprised as he thought I might be in receiving support from him. He expressed the view that the Government had not gone far enough in relation to deregulation. The Opposition saying that we have gone too far and my right hon. Friend saying that we have not gone far enough probably means that the Government have got it about right.

My right hon. Friend went on to highlight other problems with parking, with which we, as Members of Parliament, are all too familiar. I apologise if I have not been brave enough to venture into the other areas that he would like to discuss in relation to parking, but, first, I would be ruled out of order, and, secondly, we all know that when it comes to parking issues, it is a lose-lose situation whatever decision is taken.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that one concern of citizens is the use of fines to raise funds? I checked Magna Carta 1297, which for these deregulatory purposes can be found in the volume of statutes from 1235 to 1770, and it is clause 14 that is, in part, being reinstated by this Bill.

[Tom Brake]

I did not know that Magna Carta touched on the matter of parking, but I am better informed as a result of my hon. Friend’s intervention.

Still on parking, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham touched on complicated parking signs and rules. Local authorities should ensure that signs are appropriate for parking restrictions. If they are not, drivers may complain to their council. If they receive a ticket, they have a free appeal to the local council and then a free appeal to the adjudicator if the council decides against them. I am sure that he is aware of that and will have referred many a constituent to the adjudicator in relation to disputes over parking tickets. The Government announced over the weekend that local residents and local firms will be able to demand a review of parking in their areas, including charges and the use of yellow lines.

We then had a contribution from the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) who described a distressing incident involving a young constituent of hers. I am sure that we all wish to convey our sympathy to her constituent for what was clearly a very traumatic incident. I do not know whether she has pursued with her local authority its participation in the disclosure and barring service, which may have been able to identify a problem with that particular driver. The hon. Lady went on to say that what we propose in this Bill will make matters worse. Again, I dispute that. We have had many comments from the Opposition saying that the Government will make matters worse, but they have offered little to substantiate those allegations.

The hon. Lady referred to the risk of the public using an unlicensed taxi. The measures to allow off-duty use of private hire vehicles relates not to taxis but to PHVs or mini cabs. In London no issues have been reported to the Department by Transport for London. As I have stated on a number of occasions, the Law Commission recommended this measure. In fact, it may go further as it calls for off-duty use of taxis, too.

House of Commons Business

John Hemming Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I do not intend to go back to the 1300s, but I do intend to go back to the 1600s. In 1624, the master of the felt-makers was arrested while attending the House to proffer a petition. The House considered that he had the protection of the House to proffer the petition and established a committee to consider whether the arrest itself was a breach of privilege. In 1696, Thomas Kemp and other Hackney coachmen were arrested as a consequence of proceedings by Richard Gee, a commissioner of Hackney coaches. The House concluded that Mr Gee was guilty of a breach of privilege and a high misdemeanour and that he was to be imprisoned by the Serjeant. In 1699, John Kelly was imprisoned in consequence of having given Members an abstract of several articles against the commissioners of victualling. That was referred to the Privileges Committee. The fact that people used to be imprisoned for petitioning Parliament shows how important petitions were.

To return to the current day, about a month ago the London borough of Redbridge was upset that a 94-year-old woman wanted to petition Parliament. Sadly, before it could get an injunction to stop her petitioning Parliament, she did so and the petition is now bagged behind Mr Speaker’s Chair and in Hansard. Obviously, there are still issues with regard to petitioning Parliament.

One of my fundamental principles in politics is that people have a right to complain to Members of Parliament. An issue about schools in my constituency and others in Birmingham has been debated. It is a particular principle of mine that nobody should be frightened to speak to me. There is no question but that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) did excellent work, with the support of the Business Secretary, in getting a statutory instrument through that stated that disclosures to Members of Parliament are protected disclosures for the purposes of employment tribunals. I have asked the schools to put in their staff room a copy of the Library briefing saying that a disclosure to a Member of Parliament is a protected disclosure, and they have both agreed to do so. The staff at those schools can therefore have absolute certainty that they are protected, from the perspective of employment law, in talking to Members of Parliament.

Parliament should go further and do what it used to do in the 1600s, because it used to protect people’s right to complain to Members of Parliament. In our debates, that is what privilege is about. It is about the people of this country being able to use Parliament to redress all grievances. Although the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) referred in his excellent speech to article 5 of the Bill of Rights, he did not mention article 13, which defines one function of Parliament as the redress of all grievances. However, if we do not know what people’s grievances are, how can we redress them? Through parliamentary jurisdiction, Parliament has powers to protect people when they talk to Members of Parliament. I have two live cases: in one, somebody has recently been injuncted in an attempt to stop them talking to me; in the other—I have only just got the e-mail on my phone—somebody is frightened that they might face litigation if they petition Parliament.

There is an issue about e-petitions, which are not proceedings in Parliament, although paper petitions are. I agree with the Government motion, which is sensible. I am a member of both the Procedure Committee and the Backbench Business Committee, and I congratulate both the Chairs on their able work. I agree that e-petitions need to be looked at, and I disagree with the amendment of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), which would fetter the Procedure Committee’s discretion. Although I accept some of the amendment’s content, if it is pushed to a vote, I will oppose it.

As a House, we must emphasise that parliamentary privilege is a form of privilege akin to absolute privilege, qualified privilege and legal professional privilege, all of which are about protecting people’s rights. Parliamentary privilege is about protecting our citizens’ or constituents’ rights to complain to us, with those complaints being addressed in some part or other of the system. Frankly, we should explain that fact, rather than change the name, because privilege has an important function. How else can people ask somebody to stand up on their behalf to complain about what has happened to them without fearing that they will be imprisoned?

Lots of things still go wrong in this country. Hon. Members will be aware that I have often complained about people being intimidated in an attempt to stop them talking to me. Normally, it does not work; sometimes it does. Obviously, I do not know the circumstances when intimidation has worked in that way, because the people stop talking to me. We need to protect people’s rights to talk to us.

[Mr Bacon]

I am listening to my hon. Friend’s speech with interest. If I had to explain privilege, I would describe it as the unfettered right of Members to stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents. That is the simplest way to describe it. Does he not think that it is extraordinary for an English judge ever to believe that there are circumstances in which it is appropriate for them to name a Member of Parliament as a person to whom a constituent should not speak, as has happened in an injunction?

[John Hemming]

Indeed; it is extraordinary for a judge to go so far, but there has been some pulling back from that position. The Neuberger committee considering the issue of super-injunctions concluded that it is not possible for an injunction to prevent people from talking to Members of Parliament. However, not everybody has read the Neuberger committee’s report. I am the sort of sad person who reads judgments, committee reports and the like, but most people who are told that they will be imprisoned if they talk to an MP believe that that is true—in fact, it is not true—and that, sadly, guides what they do.

A very serious concern is therefore a live one in 2014. Even if petitioning has gone on since the 1300s, it is a live concern today. Although the work of the right hon. Member for Haltem and Howdenprice or whatever it is—[Interruption.] I apologise to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden for not getting his constituency name right. Notwithstanding the complexities of his constituency name, his work is excellent. That work has gone part of the way, but we need to go further. It is a job for Mr Speaker through referring issues to the Privileges Committee, because we need to stand up for our constituents’ rights to talk to us.

On timetabling on Report, I want to make two points. The first is that procedure is how one exercises power and is therefore crucial. From time to time, all Governments want to use procedure to prevent difficult votes from happening. I do not think that Governments are frightened so much about debates as about votes in which difficult Members—perhaps like me—will not necessarily vote with the Government, so if they can avoid such votes, all the better. That will always be a difficulty, although we are making useful progress in the form of the motion on programming before us.

The second point about process is one that people should be aware of when they consider votes in Public Bill Committees and whether amendments should be made in the Commons or in the other place. The reality is that for amendments to be accepted by the Government, there has to be a consultation process throughout Whitehall, which is sensible, but takes a certain time. If an amendment is tabled in a Public Bill Committee to be voted on three days later, the consultation process will not have happened and the Government are not therefore in a position to agree to it. That is why many amendments, however well argued, are not generally accepted until they appear again in the other place. The Procedure Committee has suggested using the recommittal process, and I believe that there are mechanisms to facilitate the Government’s accepting amendments in this place rather than the other place. We must, however, take into account the real and realistic requirements for a process of consultation, and the fact that a vote in a Public Bill Committee at short notice is insufficient. In other words, we are making glacial progress, although in some areas we should assert ourselves, as Members did in the 1600s.

Amendment of Standing Orders

John Hemming Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I am in the unusual position of having divided loyalties, being a member of the Procedure Committee and of the Backbench Business Committee. In this instance, however, I support the Procedure Committee, because I wish to see more power for Parliament and less for the Executive.

I do not think that the question of the number of days per year is a massive issue of principle. If a Parliament were to have a forced caesarean, which none of us would want to see, rather than its normal gestation period, a reduction in the number of days would not be a big issue. It is entirely reasonable to have a system in Standing Orders that means that if Parliament goes on for a longer period, there is no need to come to say, “We need more time” and it is automatically delivered. That is a fair way of working. It is not a big issue of principle.

The second matter involves more of an issue of principle. The point is simple: why do only the Executive have the power to timetable Parliament and Parliament cannot timetable itself? Let us consider the changes that have happened since the Wright report. The first change meant that the Backbench Business Committee was accountable not to Parliament as a whole, but to the political groups—again, that increased the power of the Executive. Our proposal is to give the Backbench Business Committee a power—if it does not work, it does not have to be used—that is currently held only by the Executive. That is an important step forward, and it would give Parliament a power that it currently does not have.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he not struck by the argument put forward by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) a moment ago—if there is a timetable and a time by which the debate must end, that will become not the terminus ad quem, but something towards which we work? We will fill the time up to that point. She made a particularly good point.

[John Hemming]

The hon. Lady made a good point if we exercise the power. The idea is not that every debate should be timetabled; it is that the Committee should have this power. Her argument was that perhaps that power might be needed in the future, but we could give the Committee that power to use if it sees fit. Instead she recommends that the discretion should not be there. In the interests of democracy and of increasing the power of the representatives of the people—Parliament—and reducing the power of the Executive, that power should be given to the Committee and not just limited to the Executive.

[Natascha Engel]

That was not quite what I said. I said that if we were given the power, Members would demand it. I am worried that if we are given the power, that is what Members will constantly want and then the time will become filled to the timetable rather than by what is needed.

[John Hemming]

Members will only want it if they see a need for it. The Committee will have discretion over whether to give that power. As I said, this issue comes down to where someone sees the power resting between the Executive and the legislature. My view is that democracy is important and that we should give power to the legislature.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

I know for a certain fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne is not a charlatan and a fraud. I very much hope that he withdraws his motion, because then the Government amendments could not be passed.

[John Hemming]

The hon. Gentleman made the point just before accepting my intervention: if the motion is withdrawn, the Government amendments cannot be passed. However, then we would not have any changes at all. It is a question for the House as to whether the House divides; it is not a question for the Chairman of a particular Committee.

Business of the House

John Hemming Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on drawing attention to that. Clearly, we all want our prisons to be safe environments both for prison staff and for prisoners. He has made a specific request about staffing levels and the impact on health and safety, and I will ensure that a written response is sent to him.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Far too often, constituents of mine end up in destitution when their claim for employment and support allowance ends. Whereas they qualify for jobseeker’s allowance or income support, such a claim is not put in place. Will the Government introduce a motion to authorise the Department of Work and Pensions to institute automatically a claim in appropriate circumstances while the legislative environment is resolved?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He said something on which we can achieve consensus, which is that no one should be left destitute. If there is an appropriate way of ensuring the transition to which he referred, I am sure that DWP will seek to find it.

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

John Hemming Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Schedule 1 makes an exception for Members of Parliament who lobby on behalf of people living in their constituencies, but does not refer to Members of the European Parliament, Members of devolved Administrations, city councillors and the like. Do the Government intend to require councillors who write to Ministers on behalf of their electorates to register themselves as consultant lobbyists?

[Mr Lansley]

No. We believe that the position is the same as that relating to Members of Parliament, and that given the nature of what constitutes the business of consultant lobbying, the Bill would not include those who were not involved in that business.

Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Wright Reforms

John Hemming Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Allen]

We are always grateful for any crumbs handed to us from the Executive and we are extremely grateful for those things gifted to us, even if—I must say—they have come after extensive struggle, campaigning and organising over many years. I am grateful that some of these minor things have been proposed, but we need to do far more for ourselves, without the benefit of the assistance of the Government. The work of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire on the Backbench Business Committee proves, if it need be proved, that we are perfectly capable of running more of our own affairs.

I will come on to the House Business Committee shortly, but I am genuinely grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons for saying that the door is open. We will continue to press and push gently at the door and provide him with a road map that will not frighten the horses but will give MPs some say over the rest of their agenda.

There remain areas where we could help the Backbench Business Committee even more. Timetabling Back-Bench business on Thursdays, as often happens, lowers its status. Much, if not all, of that business could, and should, be taken at a time when the House is better attended. When the Front Benchers have had their spotlight, they have little interest in keeping Parliament well attended. We got a pager message yesterday telling us we were on a one-line Whip, which basically meant, “You can clear off, if you want to”, rather than listen to a Select Chair introduce an important report on local government and to other important issues that do not get the attention they should.

In this respect, despite Wright, the House remains subordinate to the Government. In that, we do not acquiesce; the fundamental principle remains that all time in here should be regarded as the House’s time. We believe that the present procedure for setting the agenda for most of the House’s business, which is not under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, is inadequate and disrespectful to Parliament, remaining in clear violation of the principles in the Wright report. The need for reform is obvious and urgent, so we remake—not make for the first time—the case for a House Business Committee, which has been accepted and signed up to by the Government. I shall quote the coalition agreement.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Allen]

I will be glad to, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to read out this quotation about the solid commitment to a House Business Committee that his coalition Government have signed up to. It reads:

“We will bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee for reform to the House of Commons in full – starting with the proposed committee for management of backbench business. A House Business Committee, to consider government business, will be established by the third year of the Parliament.”

That is a direct quote from the coalition agreement between the two governing parties, but it has not yet been fulfilled.

[John Hemming]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work. Does he agree that one of the difficulties at the moment is that procedure is often used to prevent the will of the Executive from being tested against the will of the whole House, and that we need the opportunity for the latter to be tested, not prevented from being expressed by the use of procedural mechanisms?

[Mr Allen]

Most western democracies have a separation of powers, which allows an independent legislature to hold the Government to account. That is all we ask. Gladstone once said that the role of Parliament is not to run the country, but to hold to account those who do. It is an absolute injustice, and it flies in the face of natural justice, that those who are meant to be scrutinised are appointing and selecting those who are meant to carry out the scrutiny. Parliamentarians across the House must continue to try to do something about that.

Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)

John Hemming Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I would like to apologise to the House for the fact that I was doing a second job earlier. I had to pop off and sit on a statutory instrument Committee. I shall have another second job in a bit, which involves sitting on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The quorum is two Members of Parliament and I believe that I am needed, so I shall pop over there for two minutes later on. All sorts of conflicts exist in the demands on Members’ time, but, to pick up on the demand made by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), I do not believe that having a “political class” is the solution.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The motion is badly drafted, in that it would trap one of the businesses that I have created, but not the other. I shall talk a bit about my history. I first fought a general election in 1983, when I was the youngest Liberal candidate in the country. Later that year, I founded a business called John Hemming and Company. I fought the general election in 1987, and I was elected to Birmingham city council in 1990. I became the group leader and deputy leader of the council in 2004. During all that time, I have also chaired my business, which is now called JHC.

Speaking of conflicting demands on Members’ time, I went to chair my board meeting yesterday. It took two hours. I came into the House of Commons early, at about 7.30 in the morning, and at about 10 o’clock I got on the tube and went to my office. I chaired the meeting and was back here by noon. I have to ask: what is the big danger in my popping off to London Bridge for two hours, once a month? What mischief is created by that?

[Paul Flynn]

If there were a crisis in one of the hon. Gentleman’s businesses involving large sums of money, and he had to make a choice between dealing with that and an important constituency matter here, which way would he go? That illustrates the problem of dual loyalties and dual wages.

[John Hemming]

I am lucky, in that I am able to arrange things so that that does not happen. I am in control of the timing in the business. Obviously, my priority is with Parliament. My duty is to Parliament, as is quite clear under our constitution and, like most hon. Members, I work seven days a week performing that duty. Admittedly I only did half a day on Sunday, and I might finish by 4 o’clock on a Saturday, but I do work the standard 60, 70 or 80 hours a week, depending on what is going on.

It has been suggested that it would be reasonable to pay people like me who have large external earnings a lower rate of pay here. I do not mind that, as long as no one says that I am not a full-time MP. This is what I resent about the motion. Its argument is that I am not doing this job correctly for my constituents because I happen also to chair a business that I have run for many years.

[Chris Williamson]

Would the hon. Gentleman accept that there is an issue of perception involved? The perception is that hon. Members’ directorships or consultancies could influence the way in which they vote on certain issues. As I mentioned in my speech, people feel that certain Members voted for the national health service reorganisation so that they could gain financially from it.

[John Hemming]

I accept that this is about conflicts of interest, and there is a problem when external bodies control what Members of Parliament do. I am a member of a trade union, so I am not anti-trade union, but if the unions are controlling what the Labour party is doing, that is not a good environment.

Similarly, there is a problem with having a second job as a Minister. That really creates a conflict of interest, because Ministers can lose their ministerial salary if they do not vote along party lines in Parliament. We accept that as part of our constitution, but it clearly involves a conflict of interest, in that Ministers have to support the Government. I am lucky as a Back Bencher; people say that I can afford to be independent. I will not lose any income if I happen to rebel against the party.

[Oliver Colvile]

Does the hon. Gentleman remember that, at the beginning of the 20th century, people had to resign their seat if they wanted to become a Cabinet Minister? That must have been pretty devastating at the time.

[John Hemming]

The last such resignation was in the 1960s, when the practice went against the then Government and was brought to an end. The second job of being a Minister is clearly demanding, and it undermines that Member’s constituency activity.

The wording of the motion is absolutely dreadful in that it would pick up one of my businesses but not the other. Why is that? What is the sense in picking up one structure of ownership and not another? The Opposition are also suggesting that we should not take the earned money, but they have no problem with those Members who are shareholders taking unearned income. Traditionally, Labour Members thought that earned income was more acceptable than unearned income, but they now seem to be arguing that we should have our unearned income. That is easy enough for me to structure, as I am in control of my corporate structures, but it is difficult for other people in other circumstances. The whole thing is frankly absurd. It drives us on again to what I think the hon. Member for Derby North was arguing for—the development of a political class. He did say that. He said that the Labour party wants a political class—a concept according to which we work only in politics and do not have any experience outside it.

[Helen Goodman]

No, no, no, no—the hon. Gentleman completely misses the point. It is perfectly possible to do as I did and have three different jobs before entering this House. That gave me more than 20 years of working experience in different institutions, which I can bring to bear on the politics—without having another paid job alongside being a Member of Parliament.

[John Hemming]

The point I am making is a very simple one: I do not think we should have a political class. An Opposition Member has called for a political class—he said those words, and I see nods around the Chamber—but I think that is very dangerous. It is dangerous to have a situation where external bodies beyond the Government, who do control votes in Parliament, control people in Parliament. Apart from being extremely badly drafted, the motion drives things further towards a political class. Thus people who have not had real jobs go through the special adviser process and all that sort of thing, ending up not being in the real world. That moves against the concept of people being able to be Members of Parliament for a short period of time, and what do we gain from it? Nothing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

This is hardly a spasm on my part. I greatly respect the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), but may I tell him that it was 16 years ago that I wrote in a book that all MPs’ additional earnings should be put into a charitable fund or used elsewhere? I repeated that in another splendid book that I published a short while ago. All the considerable royalties from that book go to charity—why not, because I already get a full-time wage for what I do?

I am sorry that I picked on the hon. Gentleman during his speech, but for five weeks last year I could not act as an MP. I did not receive any salary during that time—quite rightly so. We forget that we live in a little bubble with a system that we are used to, but people watching the debate and tweeting are baffled that anyone can say, “I have a job paying £65,000, but other jobs get my priority and attention at certain times.” If Members have to perform outside work, it would be easy—and absolutely right—to deduct the money earned from their parliamentary salary.

[John Hemming]

Should unearned income also be deducted from a Member’s salary?

[Paul Flynn]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but it is part of a different argument.

The public will not see this subject in subtle tones or have regard to the lawyers’ arguments we are hearing. In 2009, after the great screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal, our reputation was at rock bottom, but now it is even worse—it is subterranean. We saw the reaction to the suggestion that MPs’ salaries should be increased: all the old resentment was churned up.

The Daily Telegraph did democracy a reasonable turn by submitting a freedom of information request that demanded to know the most popular book that wicked MPs were borrowing from the Commons Library. I am sure that its journalists were desperate for another negative story about MPs and that they prayed in their offices that that book would be “Fifty Shades of Gray”, “How to Keep a Moat”, or “Duck House Owning for Beginners”. However, the book in greatest demand at the Library was the improving tract that I wrote, which recommends that MPs live off their salary.

We must look at this from the perspective of outsiders, not by considering subtle points about what is unearned income and what is a salary. If Members want to get outside experience, there are splendid institutions in the House through which we can go off to join the Army, Navy or Air Force, or secure a fellowship with a commercial firm over many months. Those experiences are marvellous, but the important point is that they are not paid. The great resentment among the public arises because we receive a full-time wage and so we should be doing full-time work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lucas]

I will make a little progress and if I have time, I will give way.

It has always amazed me that some Members of Parliament continue to do other jobs. Why would someone become a Member of Parliament if they wanted to be a company director or a consultant? They could be a company director or a consultant without being a Member of Parliament. Becoming an MP is not a route to becoming a company director or a consultant—or is it? I always ask myself why it is that companies want MPs as consultants or directors. Is it for their unique insights on the world? Even the cleverest of MPs—and there are some very self-regarding MPs on the Government Benches today—should not flatter themselves. It is clear why such posts are offered to Members of Parliament. It is not because of their unique intelligence, but because they are Members of Parliament. It is because of the influence that Members of Parliament have and the access that that buys.

[John Hemming]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I appointed myself to that job and that when I did so, I was not a Member of Parliament, although I had stood for Parliament? It was therefore not a factor in the consideration.

[Ian Lucas]

As interesting as the hon. Gentleman thinks he is, I was not talking about him.

No one should have privileged access to an MP. Even more importantly, no one should be able to secure access to an MP by paying them. For that reason, I welcome the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition that MPs should be prevented from holding paid directorships and consultancies. Such arrangements give those who pay for it unique access to MPs.

It was interesting that the Leader of the House referred to a job offer that he received after he became a Member of Parliament. I would be interested to know why that company decided he was the person they wanted to give a job to. Does he know? Can he tell us? I would be delighted to take an intervention. Let me tell him the reason: it is because he is an MP and the company wanted access to him.

business of the house

John Hemming Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I refer the House to my declaration of interest as the chairman of the Justice for Families campaign.

I remain concerned about cases in all the secret courts in the UK. The more secret the court, the more the system acts against the rule of law. Narrow freedoms of speech are at least as important as broad access to publicity—reporting wrongdoing to regulators and asking for advice are important narrow freedoms. Without academic scrutiny, nonsense can be spouted and experts can lie for money with impunity.

Care proceedings are an area of difficulty. I remain of the view that around 1,000 children a year are wrongly forcibly adopted in the UK. Gradually, I am getting more Government support in this area—sadly, still not from the UK Government. Last week I spoke at the Polish embassy, at a conference about care proceedings. Concerns have now also been raised by Nigeria, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Latvia, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Spain and Turkey.

For the avoidance of doubt, my concern is that a material proportion of care proceedings go way beyond being plainly wrong and hit the threshold of “totally nuts”. I must stress, however, that I see the appointment of Sir James Mumby as president of the family division as a positive step. I also welcome judgments such as [2013] EWHC 521 (Fam) of Mostyn J.

When the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) apologised to the children who were forcibly sent to the Commonwealth, I asked what confidence he had that such an apology would not be issued in the future for what we are doing today. His response was to ask me to send details of individual cases. I have, of course, sent many individual cases to UK Ministers. The standard response is, “It’s nothing to do with us, guv.” The fact is that, according to our constitution, the UK Government must publicly accept judicial decisions, although in practice they often criticise them—except in the family division.

More recently, Australia has apologised for forced adoption. The question was put by Florence Bellone to Professor Eileen Munro about whether in the future we may see an apology in the UK. Her response was:

“I would not be surprised if a future generation looks back and thinks how horrific the quality of our work was and the damage that we did to families.”

What we have developed—this is mainly through a mathematical error in the use of the number of children in care for the denominator of the adoption target—is a care system that is obsessed with adoption. It is so obsessed with adoption that it does things that objectively have to be seen to be irrational. I will not go into the details of Angela Wileman’s case, as I have referred to it before and I do not have time. I was pleased to hear that the arrest warrant was removed from Susan McCabe, the daughter of Councillor Janet Mockridge, who has been living in France with her two children for over five years. The attempts to remove her son for adoption in England, while leaving her daughter, gave the message of a system more concerned about winning than about the best interests of the child.

In another recent case, I read a note about the effect of the proposal for a child to be adopted out of her family. The report said:

“Since being told about the adoption, A’s mood has changed, she is clearly concerned and upset by this move, which perhaps is to be expected. However, she has nightmares most nights and is not getting adequate sleep, two weekends ago she vomited 5 times in one night.”

This case is not unique. There are even international cases where the system has taken children from people visiting the UK and refused to give them back, even though the system clearly does not have jurisdiction. That is damaging to the children, and I am prevented by the sub judice rule from giving more information here.

The international cases are particularly interesting as the assessments in England can be compared against assessments from professionals in other countries. Professionals in other countries wonder why such strange things are done—things that cause serious psychological damage to children in the UK. Working with Slovak politicians, I have managed to establish an inquiry by the Human Rights Commissioner in the Council of Europe. However, it remains the case that a problem that arises basically in secret courts is constitutionally difficult to fix, because it needs scrutiny to fix it. There is an additional challenge in that the people affected who are UK citizens are generally poorer people and less articulate. Hence, although stories about people who are foreign citizens maltreated in the UK get substantial coverage in the foreign media, there are only a few journalists such as Sue Reid, Christopher Booker and Ted Jeory who are willing to report on these cases. The speech of Denise Robertson, “This Morning’s” agony aunt, at the justice for families conference in Birmingham last December should be broadcast on TV to explain the truth.

What we actually have is a failure of democracy. In the same way as we had the cover-up over Hillsborough and the failures at the Mid Staffordshire hospital, we have a system that is going wrong in a large number of cases and maltreating families. In maltreating families, it is maltreating the children and the adults. It is reasonably well known that this is going on. However, the Government deny it. The inquiries that occur in Parliament do not look at the individual cases. Without looking at the individual cases, we cannot see the things that are going wrong. Inquiries such as the family justice review are dominated by the people who run the system, and hence are unlikely to recognise the failures of the system.

I put forward proposals in my private Member’s Bill, but it was squeezed out by the Government, who have still not explained why in detail. I have had a conversation with the Minister with responsibility for children, but I have no hopes from that. I have very little time left. I would like to give a much fuller speech, as a lot more needs to be said, but I will end by saying Happy Easter.