Local Newspapers

Debate between John McDonnell and Paul Flynn

Thursday 19th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Hugh. I am very pleased with the turnout. I thought that there would be only a few of us, because of the nature of today. I know that some Members have constituency duties and may want to intervene and then leave. I completely understand that, given that we are only a few days from Prorogation.

Let me place it on the record that I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group. It is a cross-party group of MPs who have raised issues on behalf of the union and journalists generally over a number of years. It is chaired by my hon. Friend and comrade the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell). His speech today may not be his last in the House before he retires at the end of this Parliament, but it may well be the last time that he speaks on this subject. He is leaving the House to take up a more productive and fulfilling life outside. I look forward to the articles, novels and updated memoirs that he will produce.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my distress at the departure of our hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), because that will deprive the House of diversity? Our greatest problem in the House is in getting a House that is as diverse as the nation, and his departure will add to the terrible shortage of octogenarians here. Is that not a terrible shame?

[John McDonnell]

It will be a great loss. I want formally to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby for his services to the NUJ in the House. He has championed a free and flourishing media in this country and the critically important role of journalists. I place on the record all our thanks for that.

As this will be our last discussion on this subject before the new Parliament, I also thank the Minister for having always been willing to engage with the union and the parliamentary group. He has always been accessible, co-operative and keenly interested in supporting the role of journalists. I am grateful for that. I wanted to place that on the record.

This debate was sponsored by me, the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who chairs the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, and a number of others. I also place on record my thanks and the union’s thanks to the Chair of the Committee for the support and focus that he has given to the Committee’s work in seeking to promote vibrant media in this country and, in particular, for the keen interest that he has displayed in the role of the local press and its importance to our democracy. He has always made the Committee accessible to the views of the NUJ. He has enabled successive general secretaries to present evidence to the Committee and has met them when necessary. He has engaged in an ongoing dialogue on the issues facing the industry, and I want to say that I am grateful for that on behalf of the NUJ.

The NUJ parliamentary group has secured, with its allies across the parties, a number of debates in recent years on local media, and has met with some success, if I may say so. Some hon. Members may recall that we were in this Chamber—I think that it was two years ago—to debate the cuts to local BBC radio services, and we fended off the large-scale cutting of those services. Similarly, we have used Adjournment debates, parliamentary questions and early-day motions persistently to highlight the troubles visited on the local newspaper sector. We held a debate similar to this two and a half years ago, I believe. I recall that at that stage we were all hoping, on a cross-party basis, that the economic cycle would lead to an upturn in the prospects of local newspapers as they integrated themselves into the new world of digital media.

The reason why the hon. Member for Colchester, the Chair of the Select Committee and others supported this debate is that although there have undoubtedly been some positive developments, the plight of local newspapers has in many ways and in many areas worsened, and in some areas the position is perilous now.

The Library briefing pack has been circulated. I hope that hon. Members have seen it. The NUJ provided the Library with a detailed briefing setting out an analysis of what has been happening in the local newspaper sector in the two years since the debate. It is pretty grim reading. I will run through some of the main features, but more importantly I want to prompt a discussion about where we go from here and put forward some ideas on that. It is especially important in the light of yesterday’s statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which offered a possible lifeline to some elements of the local press, certainly if the measure is designed properly. I do not think it takes much forensic examination to discern the Minister’s fingerprints on the reference in the Chancellor’s speech, and I congratulate him and thank him for achieving this breakthrough in the recognition by the Treasury that something has to be done.

Let me put on the record again what the Chancellor said:

“Local newspapers are a vital part of community life, but they have had a very tough time in recent years. Today, we announce a consultation on how we can provide them, too, with tax support.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 776.]

The details of that consultation have not been released yet. I am told that it may not be before the general election, but I expect whoever is in government to pursue the consultation. I think that it will be a worthwhile exercise enabling us to have a wider dialogue on what sort of support can be provided to the newspaper industry.

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

Debate between John McDonnell and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

To be frank, I find this whole debate deeply worrying and depressing. We must remind ourselves that only a few years ago the House was brought into contempt in the eyes of the general public because of the expenses scandal. Even those of us who were completely clean were cast in the same light. For most of us, being elected was one of the proudest moments of our lives, but after the expenses scandal we almost had to apologise for being an MP. Then we legislated, we had an election, large numbers of new people came into the House, and we thought we had put the issue behind us. However, the Prime Minister was right to say that the next scandal would be about lobbying, which is why I welcomed the introduction of this Bill.

It was most depressing and angry-making—I was furious—when I saw the films of Members of Parliament offering their services to lobbyists for money, so when the Government said they were going to introduce legislation, I did not mind so much about the speed as I wanted it done quickly but effectively. It is, however, acutely depressing that this Bill does nothing of the sort. By excluding the vast proportion of lobbyists—the in-house lobbyists—we are making ourselves a laughing stock.

Let me follow on from what the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said. I have experience of in-house lobbyists. In my constituency, the third runway campaign, BAA, did not use external lobbyists; it used generally in-house lobbyists who not only lobbied but had passes to the Department for Transport. They were not bothered about meeting Ministers; they wanted to meet junior civil servants who wrote the projections of growth in passenger traffic and so on. That is how effective they were. When he was the Minister responsible for aviation, Chris Mullin asked how many BAA staff were in the Department for Transport on a daily basis. On the day he left, he was told that dozens of people had passes to come to the Department to influence people. I think that is corruption in any other terms, and the sort of thing we want to tackle.

The hon. Member for St Albans gave a brilliant speech and some examples of what goes on. Bizarrely, however, the Bill does not tackle that level of corruption but gags the very people from whom we want to hear. It even gags them during the general election period when they can be most influential. I find the proposed legislation not only contradictory but shameful, and it is important to listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said. We should stand back for the next period, listen and take evidence from organisations and individuals with experience in this field, and come to some agreement about the way forward.

If we cannot reach cross-party agreement on this issue, the Bill will not stand up in the long term. Once again the House will be brought into disrepute because we will be on the side of protecting lobbyists while trying to gag those who, as representatives of civil society, want their voice properly heard. I urge the Government to think again. Let us bring the parties together outside this Chamber and have another discussion about a proper way forward and a realistic timetable.

We can still meet a timetable that enacts legislation before the next general election, but we need the next couple of months for careful consideration and the proper involvement of all those who will be affected. The only people who seem to be involved at the moment are professional lobbying associations, not those I think actually deserve to be heard. If the Bill is passed in its current form, it will go down as a Bill drafted by a lobbyist for certain types of lobbyists, and they will be those lobbyists who try to maximise their profit.

[Paul Flynn]

I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech and am grateful to him for giving way. He expresses the anger felt on both sides of the House about the potentially corrupting activity of lobbyists over many years. Can he think of any demand from anyone who believes that the next scandal in the country will involve Oxfam, the British Legion and Save the Children?

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Leader of the House would win the respect of the House if he took time to bring those organisations in to hear from them. He argues that gagging is not within the legislation. The impact of the legislation per se will not gag those organisations, but self-gagging will take place, because, as other hon. Members have said, people will not want to risk their charity’s or organisation’s funds on lawyers to advise them or to defend them when things go wrong. I therefore ask the Government to stand back, pause and consult, and introduce adequate legislation on which we can reach consensus. I am sure we can do it.

Part 3 of the Bill is about trade unions. The reality is that, since Mrs Thatcher’s day, the Conservatives have wanted to introduce legislation that bans trade unions, but have realised they could not get it through the House. They have therefore successively introduced legislation to ensure that they impede the activities of trade unions as best they can. That is why we have had extensive discussions on the technicalities of balloting, registrations and so on.

The measure is yet another way in which the Conservatives are trying to encumber trade unions with unnecessary bureaucracy to impede them in representing their members. Unions already have membership lists, which they must regularly update, because if they ballot for industrial action or on consultations, they must ensure the list are accurate—otherwise, they will be in court yet again, because employers can take legal action against them to prevent industrial action or any other form of action before strike action.

The legislation is therefore unnecessary, but I find it offensive because it applies only to trade unions. Why just trade unions? The Leader of the House’s argument is that trade unions influence public policy, but so does the CBI, the Institute of Directors and a large number of organisations that are not encompassed by the legislation. That betrays the real agenda: the measure is an attack on trade unions—yet again—by the Government.

I hope the Government see sense on that measure. All they will do is introduce another mechanism that sours the industrial relations climate in this country—another opportunity for litigation, meaning more time spent in the courts. That does not enhance the relationship between workers and employers, or the development of industrial, manufacturing or other economic policy by bringing people together; it simply increases antagonism. I believe it will therefore be counter-productive. I urge the Government to think again on the measure. It is petty, and they are introducing it now simply for short-term party advantage following debates before the summer recess. The measure will do nothing for the Government’s standing or for the relationship between trade unions and employers.

Finally, this is no way to legislate. I fully agree with much of what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House on that. This is no way to introduce a major constitutional reform. At the end of the day, if it is forced through by the Government, we will be back to amend it. However, while it is in place, it will undermine democratic engagement in this country across the piece.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Paul Flynn

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

That may well have been the case in the past, but I think we have moved on. When the issue was debated in a different form—I think it was on a private Member’s Bill promoted by Evan Harris—Lord Falconer did the maths, calculated the large number of descendants that could have a claim to the throne and argued that we did not have parliamentary time and that the issue was irrelevant anyway. If we change the proposal on marriage, however, it may soon become very relevant, because we would not want to bar a future monarch from marrying a Catholic, a Jew or a Muslim. I think that that will come on to the agenda very quickly, whereas in the past parliamentary time was not found for it because it was not seen to be relevant.

[Paul Flynn]

Does my hon. Friend agree, having been present at previous debates, that the objection to breaking the taboo about the royal succession comes from those who say that once we get rid of this particular indefensible idiocy, the other foolishness involved in the royal succession will be exposed and people will come up with suggestions to reform the whole system so that we can have a monarchy or Head or State who are electable?

[John McDonnell]

I assure the House that supporting the amendment is not my cunning plan to get rid of the monarchy overnight. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that there will be a debate as we move through this century about all our institutions, including the monarchy. That is why I was disappointed that his amendments were not selected, because I think we should have had a debate about alternative forms of Heads of State and the ways in which we can select them, rather than let the position be gained as a result of hereditary entitlement.

I will leave my argument there. I needed to put on the record why I put my name to the proposed new clause and why I tabled a similar amendment. It is about ending discrimination. On Saturday, I attended the annual dinner for pensioners organised by Botwell Catholic church St Vincent de Paul Society. When I told them about the two things that we were legislating on this week, the women cheered for ending gender discrimination, but everyone cheered for ending discrimination against Catholics. I say to hon. Members that this is not an historic thing—it is relevant. If someone in this country is born Catholic or into any other religion, or if they have no faith, and they are still discriminated against, that is unacceptable, as successive Governments and Members of this House have said. Now is the opportunity to legislate on it.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Paul Flynn

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

It is exactly that. Before my hon. Friend arrived, I mentioned that it is a traditional form of expressing democratic views. Rather than banning or impeding it, we should celebrate it. It is as simple as that.

This matter is linked to fundamental human rights. In the Human Rights Act 1998, we adopted those human rights specifically in legislation, but we accepted that they are qualified and can be limited. I accept that, but any limit has to be proportionate and for a legitimate aim. We have to be clear what harm is being inflicted as a result of an individual’s activities if we are going to restrict their fundamental rights. That is the problem with this debate and the debate under the previous Government. There has been no clarification of exactly what harm is being done outside Parliament that requires such disproportionate legislation. As far as I can see, there is no legitimate aim in the proposals of this Government, just as there was not in those of the previous Government.

The issue of security was raised by the previous Government and in the Public Bill Committee. People will remember the ludicrous debate that was held last time around when we were all worried that members of al-Qaeda would hide behind the banners erected by Brian Haw. That was actually suggested in this Chamber. I remember the last IRA attack in London because it nearly hit us when I was in my office. It came from a Transit van that fired missiles, which landed near No. 10. The police officer made it very clear in Committee that the peace campaigners out there have allowed their tents to be searched whenever they have been asked. There is no security risk.

The other issue is whether there is a threat to public order or any form of violent behaviour associated with the peace camp. As far as I am aware, none of the peace campers, including Brian Haw, has been prosecuted for violent behaviour. That issue has not been raised to promote this legislation.

The main objection is therefore the aesthetic one. People do not like the look of a few tents and campaigners outside Parliament. I do not accept that people’s aesthetic judgments can be used to undermine someone’s basic human rights of free speech, association and assembly. And anyway, the protest won the Turner prize, so there are different judgments here about aesthetics. However, I do not want to get hon. Members going about the Turner prize. It reduces the argument ad absurdum that we regularly spend a few hours in Parliament on an aesthetic judgment because some peace campaigners outside Parliament annoy a small, or perhaps even a large, number of Members.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will know that the processions of our fallen will no longer go through Wootton Bassett, and that an attempt was made to move the announcement of the names of the fallen from Wednesday to a Monday and a Tuesday. The Government wished to bury the bad news. Is it not a matter for celebration that Brian Haw, through all weathers and for 10 years, has reminded us in the House of the terrible results of war and the price of those who have fallen?