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

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

It is always a choice for Parliament whether to legislate in order to express what we hold should be immune from the courts, but there are significant disadvantages in legislating. First, parliamentary privilege has to evolve as Parliament evolves and as the law evolves. If we were to try and define what parliamentary privilege is in detail—well, all the advice that our Committee had was not to try and do so. Indeed, were we to try and do so in statute, we would be tempting the courts into limiting parliamentary privilege, perhaps far further than we intended.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

It seems to me that the kernel of the problem is that this is a Bill to regulate lobbying. An important part of an MP’s job is to lobby for his or her constituency and constituents, and we are paid salaries, so in that sense we are paid lobbyists; but surely that part of our role, like every other part of the role, must be immune from the interventions of the court and must not be in any way modified by the legislation before us.

[Mr Jenkin]

I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but it is not generally asserted that, for example, correspondence between him representing his constituents and a Minister is privileged, because it would be difficult to prove that that constituted proceedings in Parliament. I do not think, therefore, that we can seek to extend parliamentary privilege in the Bill. What we do as our job to represent our constituents is clearly not intended to be included in the regulation of lobbying. It would be intolerable if Members of Parliament had to register as lobbyists in order to represent their constituents, or indeed represent any other interests. I will return to that point later, if my right hon. Friend will forgive me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend. I just want to emphasise that the amendments I am speaking to deal with the narrower question of privilege, although I will return to the risk, which I think the Minister must address, of the wider drawing in of Members’ activities into the scope of the Bill.

[Mr Redwood]

Further to that exchange, does my hon. Friend not see my case, which is that if the Bill is in danger of restricting our privilege to write letters on behalf of our constituents as properly paid advocates for our constituents, we need to stop that happening? Otherwise, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) will not be able to campaign against something in her constituency by writing to a Minister without registering under the Bill.

[Mr Jenkin]

I will return to that matter, but when my right hon. Friend employs the word “privilege” in that context, he is not employing it in terms of parliamentary privilege. It is not a parliamentary privilege that protects our ability to write to Ministers on behalf of our constituents. That is not covered by parliamentary privilege.

With the indulgence of the House, I wonder whether I might quote the Lord Chief Justice when he made it clear that we should, if possible, avoid legislating on matters regarding privilege. He said:

“Parliament has to decide whether it has sufficient privilege to be able to conduct its business in the way that Parliament wishes. If you have reservations about that, you have to produce a system that enables you to have the conditions under which you can perform your responsibilities properly. If you had no real reservations about it, I would not go down the legislative route that defined, semi-defined, subdivided, allowed for, or exercised this and that, because you would end up in interminable discussions, and, in court, interminable arguments, about what that really meant. Unless you are dissatisfied with the way in which your privileges operate, I would leave this well alone.”

By that, I think he means that the courts are predisposed to defer to proceedings in Parliament, whatever statutes may say.

The 1689 Bill of Rights is one of those special statutes in our legal system that is implicitly present in every statute. We do not need to repeat what is in the Bill of Rights 1689 in every statute in order to immunise it for the purpose of parliamentary privilege. The one exception that we have made is in respect of the IPSA legislation—the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009—in which we inserted the words that I am proposing in my new clause:

“Nothing in this Act shall be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689.”

I submit that the House of Lords put that clause in the Parliamentary Standards Bill in rather extreme circumstances. When that Bill arrived in this House, it seemed that it was going to go into areas that were previously considered part of the exclusive cognisance of this House. It was going to refer to disciplining Members for what we did in this House, and that was going to draw parliamentary proceedings into the consideration of the courts in a way that was unprecedented. All that was eventually taken out by the House of Lords. In those exceptional circumstances, when the courts were under enormous public pressure to take more draconian action following the expenses fiasco, it was reasonable for Parliament to put that clause into that Bill, but generally we should try to avoid putting any reference to the Bill of Rights 1689 into legislation.

My amendment 1 suggested that we delete paragraph 1 of schedule 1. I note that the Government have now proposed that we remove both paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of schedule 1. Paragraph 1 removes language which is lifted from the Bill of Rights 1689, without referring to the 1689 Act. Because there is no reference to it, paragraph 1 does not place the wording in the special category in which the Act exists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Thomas]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who made an extremely interesting speech to which I listened carefully. Like him, I am encouraged by the Government’s decision to table the amendments deleting the two offending paragraphs to schedule 1. We tabled amendment 78 as a probing amendment, but I do not intend to move it if the Leader of the House is suitably convincing when he comments on Government amendments 28 and 29. Nevertheless, there is a series of questions that merit asking about how we got to this point and whether the amendments will resolve all the concerns.

I will deal first with some of the context of these discussions. Until the Government tabled their amendments, it appeared that they were determined to write into legislation a set of paragraphs that would have meant more Members of Parliament being affected by the Bill than actual lobbyists being registered under it. Lynton Crosby and all those in-house energy company lobbyists to whom the Government listen will not have to register because the Bill is still so badly drafted, but Members of Parliament raising concerns, perhaps on behalf of people under the age of 18 or asylum seekers fleeing torture who are resident in their constituencies, might have had to register.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very important that a shadow spokesman should be able to represent any interest group, company or activity in the country as they see fit and still receive their parliamentary salary without falling foul of the lobbying rules?

[Mr Thomas]

The right hon. Gentleman and I do not agree on much, but we agree on that extremely valuable point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barron]

On the two issues that we were concerned about, the Government have seen sense. This hasty piece of legislation has been changed so that we, as Members of Parliament, are not prevented from representing our constituents on wider issues. The day this Chamber can listen only to advice coming from the Executive, we may as well be in Stalinist Russia, and that is not something that I would feel comfortable with.

[Mr Redwood]

A couple of Opposition Members have raised the issue of paid advocacy and I want to reassure anyone following our debate that no one in this Chamber is saying that MPs should be allowed to receive top-up money from outside this House and then advocate the cause of those paying them. That is clearly wrong. It is against the rules and nothing in the Bill would facilitate it. I think we all agree on that, so that argument is a red herring.

The issue we are debating is the crucial one of the legitimate role of an MP and whether it can continue untrammelled by a Bill that could inadvertently capture legitimate things that an MP does. If the Leader of the House is going to guide us to reject the new clause, I want reassurance that the lobbying element of an MP’s job will be completely untouched by the way in which he wants the Bill to end up. In moving the new clause, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) made it clear that he is trying to resolve the issue of the legitimate work of an MP.

A very important part of an MP’s job is to be the chief lobbyist for their constituency but, as colleagues have said, we may also wish to be a lobbyist for another interest group that is not based in our constituency. It may be a very important part of a shadow Minister’s job to represent an industry, charity or group of underprivileged people who are not in their constituency, in order to shape national policy. Individual Members may wish to pursue similar themes, even if they are not prominent in their constituencies. It enriches our debates and makes for a fairer society if anyone from outside this House can find MPs who support their cause and who can be their advocates. We are lobbyists for all sorts of groups and interests throughout the country, whether they are in our constituencies or not. It is very important that a court or external body does not assume that, because we are paid a salary and because we lobby Ministers on behalf of the interests of people and companies throughout the country, we are subject to the rules under discussion.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that we are not seeking special privilege. We are saying that this Bill is designed to stop abuse of the lobbying system and I want a reassurance from the Leader of the House that it has not been worded in a way that inadvertently could trap MPs as if we were an abuse of the lobbying system, when the healthy expression of lobbying, through and of MPs, is fundamental to our democracy. I think that view is shared throughout the Chamber. The great difference between a free society and a tyranny or an authoritarian regime is that any group, interest, person or company in our country can try to find an MP who thinks they have a fair cause, and if they persuade an MP of that—without any payment of money or anything inappropriate—their cause can run in this House and have the chance of influencing Ministers.

I hope that the Leader of the House can reassure me that the Bill will leave absolutely no doubt that we can be lobbied and that we can lobby, and that we are the free lobbyist for anyone with a good cause.

[Mrs Gillan]

I do not wish to detain the House for long. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). When the Leader of the House responds to the debate and speaks to his amendments, it is very important that he makes it clear that we as MPs are not placing ourselves in any special position other than to represent the interests of others, which is why we have been sent to this place.

The two instances that I have raised in interventions are highly personal to me, namely HS2 and the National Autistic Society. When people throughout the country read the HS2 Bill they immediately interpreted it as a drag on their lobbying of Government and on MPs who want to speak against the project. More importantly, we have to make sure that charities and other bodies that seek our help do not misconstrue the situation and think that we will be gagged in any way. This is called the gagging Bill in common parlance, which is why I want to make sure that the Leader of the House gives us a reassurance, as I am sure he will. The one thing I know is that he has been listening very carefully to the cases that have been made across the board. Rather than detain the House any longer, I look forward to receiving the reassurances sought by Government and Opposition Members that the Bill will not inhibit us in any way.