Members’ Paid Directorships and Consultancies Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Leader of the House

Members’ Paid Directorships and Consultancies

Karl Turner Excerpts
Wednesday 25th February 2015

(9 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hague of Richmond Portrait Mr Hague
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

That could be a valid point, and I want to address it in closing my speech.

Lord Hague of Richmond Portrait Mr Hague
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I will try to fit in the hon. Gentleman before I finish.

There are two other revealing aspects of this motion. First, the Opposition make the proposal now, when the issue is in the news, but have done nothing to enforce it in their own party in the meantime. Labour Members—I make no criticism of them for this—are directors of building supply companies and investment companies, and non-executive directors of mining companies and breweries. They are paid as everything from expert advisers to executive mentors, no less. It must be nice to be an executive mentor. Does an executive mentor fall within the definition of “director”?

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Hague of Richmond Portrait Mr Hague
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I will give way two last times. I promised to give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I will then give way to one of my hon. Friends.

Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner
- Hansard - -

The Leader of the House has been very generous in giving way. He made a point that he thought was funny—frankly, the electorate would not think it was funny—about the former Prime Minister Jim Callaghan. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) made it clear that Ministers, which would of course include the former Prime Minister, have to put directorships into trust while serving as Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman’s point was not funny, and it was not correct, was it?

Lord Hague of Richmond Portrait Mr Hague
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Yes, it was correct. It is not for me to say whether it was funny; others will be the judge. I was making a point about the Opposition motion. If such a motion is so easy to make fun of, it may not have much chance of being a serious policy. The public would not find it funny if we adopted rules that could not be enforced, were confusing or damaged the future of Parliament, which is the central point.