Summer Adjournment
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Tredinnick
Yes, thank you.
In this instance it is just possible that Jonathan Cainer has something that people do believe in, and I have made a study of astrology in connection with health care over the past 20 years. I was on the last parliamentary delegation to Hong Kong before the Chinese took it back, and Governor Chris Patten said, “David, what would you like to do? Do you want to go up to the Stanley barracks, go out on a frigate or to the new territories?” I said, “No, Governor. I would like to see your astrologer.” And as Governor of Hong Kong he had one. I went to meet the astrologer and he was very concerned about the buildings around Government House.
I have been to India and talked to people there and to the Indian Government about the Indian astrological system, lahiri, which is part of their culture. In western culture, Culpeper’s book, “Astrological Judgement of Diseases from the Decumbiture of the Sick” of 1655 is the longest in print, so in all cultures we have that tradition.
I will conclude my remarks because I know I will get a lot of friendly e-mails for having had the temerity to talk about astrology in this House, but I am absolutely convinced that those who look at the map of the sky for the day that they were born and receive some professional guidance will find out a lot about themselves, and it will make their life easier. As Propertius, perhaps the most famous Roman poet, said, “A man should live his life in the endeavours which suit him best.”
I am happy for you to intervene, Mr Deputy Speaker, and remind me how much time I have left.
David Tredinnick
Well I will definitely get a lot of friendly e-mails, because I have not got on to saying that I believe firmly as a member of the Health and Science and Technology Committees of the House that we must consider ways of reducing demand for antibiotics. Both the Health Committee and the Science and Technology Committee have reported that by using complementary medicine and by listening to the witnesses we can reduce that demand. I hope that in future we stop looking just at increasing the supply of drugs and consider the way that complementary and alternative medicine can reduce the demand for drugs, reduce pressures on the health service, increase patient satisfaction, and make everyone in this country happier.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I want to take the opportunity provided by this debate to reflect on two cases involving constituents of mine that have caused me to ask, yet again, what can be done to relieve individuals and businesses of petty regulation and, more particularly, the powers given to officials to interpret the vast amount of legislation and regulation that comes forth from Government, the European Union, local authorities and the ever-increasing agencies of Government. The two cases are also linked to an inquiry being carried out by the Procedure Committee, of which I am a member, into the accountability of executive agencies and quangos, or non-departmental public bodies.
Mr Gary Rockhill of the Dovedale hotel in Cleethorpes has been having a little local difficulty with the planning department of North East Lincolnshire council. It is not uncommon for small businesses to cross swords with the planners and I make no particular comment as to the rights and wrongs of the case. I merely want to address the powers available to enforce regulations.
When Mr Rockhill attended my surgery, he outlined the problems he is encountering, one of which related to the display of an A-board outside his premises. Members on both sides of the House, particularly those who have served as councillors, will, I am sure, be familiar with these advertising displays, which seem to be so disliked by planners. Of course, councils should have powers to prevent A-boards from blocking the pathway if they are causing problems for pedestrians, the disabled, those with pushchairs and the like, but my question is: should those powers be as extensive as they are?
On 9 April, Mr Rockhill received a letter form Cofely, the council’s partner organisation, which enforces and administers the council’s planning functions. It stated:
“I am writing to you regarding the above property and the illegal advertisement you have placed on St Peters Avenue, Cleethorpes.
In connection with this investigation, the Council would like to invite you to a formal interview under caution at the Council offices. The caution states”—
these are familiar words—
“‘You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be taken in evidence.’ The reason for the interview under caution is that the Council suspects that an offence has been committed, and before any questions are put to you about your involvement or suspected involvement in that offence, the caution should be given so that your answers or silence may be given in Court in evidence.”
I remind Members that this is in connection not with burglary, drunken driving or any of the more serious offences, but with the alleged nuisance and inconvenience caused by displaying an A-board.
On behalf of Mr Rockhill, I wrote to the council’s chief executive:
“It would seem that sending out letters of this kind is, to say the least, heavy-handed. This is not a serious crime but a case of placing an A-board on the pavement…I am well aware that these are a potential hazard in certain circumstances though I have to say that, in my experience, the potential hazards seem to be in the eyes of officials rather than in reality. I would be very happy to walk around Cleethorpes with you when it is very easy to come across scores of examples of highway authority signs, lighting columns, litter bins etc that are a far more serious obstruction than Mr Rockhill’s signs.”
As I anticipated, I received a reply explaining that the council was acting perfectly properly, and in line with current legislation. Of course, councils need powers to deal with violations that cause inconvenience to those they serve, but are we seriously saying that we need such a heavy-handed approach? My question for the Minister is: should a Government who are both Liberal and Conservative allow such legislation to remain on the statute book?
My second example relates to another constituent, Mr Ernest Cromer. On Friday 20 June, Mr Cromer featured in Richard Littlejohn’s column in the Daily Mail, and he visited my constituency surgery on the same day. Mr Cromer is a former trawler skipper and, as Mr Littlejohn’s article states, he
“retains his love of the sea and fishing.”
The article continues:
“His daily exercise consists of walking 60 yards out into the”—
Humber—
“estuary to inspect his net tethered on the mud-flats to catch fish on the incoming tide. It’s a method used by locals on the banks between Grimsby and Cleethorpes for generations. On a good day, he might catch two Dover sole... Some days the net is empty. But if he catches more than a couple of fish, he gives them away to friends and neighbours.”
In no way can his operation be described as a commercial one. It does not sound as though it is akin to some foreign trawler moving in and hoovering up tons of fish. Do we really need the vast array of officialdom to protect us or, indeed, the natural resources of our seas and coastlines? On the 21 June, Mr Cromer’s story was covered by the Grimsby Telegraph, with comments from both me and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) in his support.
Immediately following Mr Cromer’s visit to my surgery, I wrote to the North Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority to express my concerns at yet another example of officialdom acting in a high and heavy-handed manner. A few days later, I received a reply from the authority’s chief officer, who I am sure has acted entirely properly and diligently in busily interpreting the vast array of legislation, rules and regulations that nowadays appear to be necessary to protect the natural environment. The first paragraph of his reply expressed his concerns:
“I would like to register my disappointment”
about
“public statements by your office, for your constituent’s position.”
Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I make no apology for defending my constituent’s position: I regard it as a fundamental part of the role of a Member of Parliament to defend constituents against the might of the bureaucracy.
The letter states that the statutory authority for the NEIFCA is the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966, as updated by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The particular regulation covering Mr Cromer’s activities was first made in the early 1990s under section 5 of the 1966 Act and section 37(2) of the Salmon Act 1986. Apparently, there are 22 regulations in force in NEIFCA’s area to protect species including salmon, sea trout and eels. I do not doubt that serious thought went into making the regulations, and that there was a need to protect some species from illegal activity, but I cannot help asking why these species are still in existence when the Mr Cromers of this world have been doing for centuries exactly what Mr Cromer is now doing. If he used modern methods—as I mentioned, they can hoover up a vast tonnage of fish—I could understand it, but is it really being suggested that a couple of fish in his net every day will cause such major problems?
As an aside, the same applies to the vast array of industry on the Humber bank and elsewhere. From the 1950s onwards, vast swaths of land on the south bank of the Humber have been developed for industry—power stations, oil refineries and other heavy industry. That was done without all the environmental regulations that now apply to protect migratory birds, yet the birds are still there. The birds are now in need of protection that delays investment and the associated jobs. I have asked representatives from Natural England and other organisations why the birds survived the previous industrial development. As yet, I have received no convincing reply. I assume the answer is that nature adapts.
I do not believe that we should abandon the regulations that protect the environment across the board, but that they should be commensurate with the problem that they seek to address and that some accountability for the officials who implement them is essential. In the case of the IFCA, there is an advisory council, but how closely it monitors the activities of its officials is open to doubt.
The NEIFCA pointed out in its reply to me that the original article was inaccurate in linking the story to Europe. I am always keen to blame the EU and the link in the article was implied rather than factual. It did not blame a specific regulation or directive for Mr Cromer’s plight, but drew attention to the fact that the destruction of the fishing industry is linked to our EU membership, which is quite right. Admittedly, the Icelandic cod wars played a part in the demise of the industry, but the hostility to the local community of what was the Common Market and is now the EU remains. I do not care whether it is the EU or successive British Governments that have introduced the regulations, but there needs to be discretion in the way they are implemented.
To return to the letter that I received from the NEIFCA, it states that
“unfortunately and hopefully as you will appreciate, we cannot make one rule for one and not another and however well meaning, to allow a specific exception for Mr Cromer would in my view place the Humber Estuary at significant risk of environmental impact, resulting in completely unregulated and uncontrollable levels of activity, killing sensitive migratory fish and eel species…and placing the general public at risk.”
Really?
To conclude, we hear frequently that the prosecuting authorities, sometimes in serious criminal cases, have decided against prosecution because it is not in the public interest, yet for poor Mr Cromer, who is accused of catching a couple of fish each day, there can be no exception and no discretion. As the NEIFCA states,
“as you will hopefully understand, this specific byelaw regulation is in place for very sound reasons and my officers provide advice and enforce their provisions in a very even-handed and fair manner right across the board.”
Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to differ.
Deregulation Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Solicitor-General
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 6—Power of HMRC to disclose information for purposes of certain litigation.
Government new clause 7—Combining different forms of subordinate legislation.
Government new clause 20—Tenancy deposits.
Government new clause 21—Short-term use of London accommodation: power to relax restrictions.
Government new clause 22—Electoral Commission: changes to facilitate efficient administration.
Government new clause 23—LGBC for England: changes to facilitate efficient administration.
Government new clause 24—Poisons and explosives precursors.
New clause 8—Replacing homes lost through the Preserved Right to Buy—
‘(1) Within one year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a plan to—
(a) replace the homes lost through the Preserved Right to Buy;
(b) review the effectiveness of the current Right to Buy policy.
(2) Before making any further changes to Right to Buy, the Secretary of State must carry out and publish an assessment of the impact of Right to Buy policy on affordable housing supply since 2012.”
This new clause would require the Minister to produce a plan to replace affordable homes lost in England as a result of Right to Buy, review the effectiveness of current policy and carry out an assessment of changes since 2012 before making further policy changes.
New clause 10—Repeal of the Sunday Trading Act 1994—
‘(1) The Sunday Trading Act 1994 is amended as follows.
(2) Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (which restricts Sunday trading at large shops) is repealed.
(3) Section 2, subsection (5) of that Act and Schedule 3 to the Act (which restricts loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday mornings) are repealed.”
New clause 11—Extending of Sunday trading hours—
‘(1) The Sunday Trading Act 1994 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 1, paragraph 2(3), leave out “six” and insert “eight”.
(3) In Schedule 1, paragraph 2(3), leave out “6 p.m.” and insert “8 p.m.”.”
New clause 12—Suspension of restriction of Sunday trading hours—
‘(1) Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (which restricts Sunday opening at large shops) does not apply during the suspension period.
(2) But Schedule 3 to that Act (which restricts loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday mornings) is to apply during the suspension period to any shop to which it would apply during that period were it not for the disapplication made by subsection (1).
(3) “The suspension period” means the part of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games period which—
(a) begins with Sunday 27 July 2014, and
(b) ends with Sunday 3 August 2014.
(4) Where a shop worker gives an opting-out notice in the pre-Games period that relates to work at an exempted large shop, section 41(3), of the Employment Rights Act 1996 has effect as if the notice period in relation to the shop worker were the period which— Section 42(2) of that Act accordingly has effect in relation to the shop worker as if the reference to three months were a reference to the notice period as it is modified by subsection (1).
(a) begins with the day on which the notice is given, and
(b) ends two months after that day, or with Sunday 3 August 2014 (if that is later).
(5) Where the opting-out notice includes an express statement to the effect that the shop worker objects to Sunday working only during the suspension period, the shop worker is to be treated for the purposes of that Act as having given an opting-in notice at the end of that period.
(6) The “pre-Games period” is the period which—
(a) begins with the day on which this Act is passed, and
(b) ends with Sunday 3 August 2014.
(7) An “exempted large shop” is a shop to which paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 would apply during the suspension period were it not for the disapplication made by section 1(1).
(8) In this section—
(a) “opting-in notice”, “opting-out notice” and “shop worker” each have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996, and
(b) “suspension period” has the meaning given in section 1(3).”
New clause 13—Suspension of restriction on Sunday trading hours—
‘(1) Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (which restricts Sunday opening at large shops) does not apply during the suspension period.
(2) But Schedule 3 to that Act (which restricts loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday mornings) is to apply during the suspension period to any shop to which it would apply during that period were it not for the disapplication made by subsection (1).
(3) “The suspension period” means the part of the Rugby World Cup 2015 period, which—
(a) begins with Sunday 20 September 2015, and
(b) ends with Sunday 25 October 2015.
(4) Where a shop worker gives an opting-out notice in the pre-Rugby Cup period that relates to work at an exempted large shop, section 41(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 has effect as if the notice period in relation to the shop worker were the period which—
(a) begins with the day on which the notice is given, and
(b) ends with Saturday 31 October 2015.
(5) Section 42(2) of that Act accordingly has effect in relation to the shop worker as if the reference to three months were a reference to the notice period as it is modified by subsection (1).
(6) Where the opting-out notice includes an express statement to the effect that the shop worker objects to Sunday working only during the suspension period, the shop worker is to be treated for the purposes of that Act as having given an opting-in notice at the end of that period.
(7) The “pre-Rugby Cup period” is the period which—
(a) begins on Friday 17 July 2015, and
(b) ends with Friday 11 September 2015.
(8) An “exempted large shop” is a shop to which paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 would apply during the suspension period were it not for the disapplication made by section 1(1).
(9) In this section—
(a) “opting-in notice”, “opting-out notice” and “shop worker” each have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996, and
(b) “suspension period” has the meaning given in section 1(3).”
New clause 14—Further exemption to Sunday trading hours: garden centres—
‘(1) The Sunday Trading Act 1994 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 1, paragraph 3(1), after paragraph (k) at end insert—
“(l) any garden centres.”
Government new schedule 2—Poisons and explosives precursors.
Amendment 84, page 11, line 18, leave out clause 17.
Government amendment 12.
Amendment 85, page 24, line 11, leave out clauses 30 and 31.
Amendment 79, in clause 30, page 24, line 14, leave out from “State” to end of line 17 and insert
“in relation to England may include a requirement that applies only where a planning authority makes compliance with the requirement a condition of a grant of planning permission.”
Government amendments 80 to 83.
Amendment 2, in clause 30, page 24, line 42, at end insert—
‘(2) This section and section 31 shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid a Zero-Carbon Housing Strategy before both Houses of Parliament.”
Government amendments 16 to 18.
Amendment 64, page 50, line 30, leave out clauses 73 to 76.
This amendment removes the requirement on persons exercising a regulatory function to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth.
Amendment 66, in clause 73, page 50, line 33, leave out “economic growth” and insert “sustainable development”.
Amendment 67, page 50, line 35, leave out “economic growth” and insert “sustainable development”.
Amendment 69, page 50, line 37, leave out “only”.
This amendment makes it clear that a person exercising a regulatory function under this section must take regulatory action when needed.
Amendment 68, in clause 75, page 51, line 29, leave out “economic growth” and insert “sustainable development”.
Amendment 70, in clause 76, page 52, line 4, after “75”, insert
“sustainable development” means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of existing communities and future generations to meet their own needs; and that contributes to the principles that the nation and areas within it should live within their environmental limits, should achieve a sustainable economy and should seek to ensure a strong, healthy and just society.”
This defines sustainable development in terms recommended by the Communities and Local Government Select Committee 2011 inquiry into the National Planning Policy Framework, which drew on the 2005 UK Sustainable Development Strategy.
Government amendments 76, 19, 21 and 77.
Amendment 3, in clause 80, page 53, line 38, at end insert
“, subject to the condition in subsection (2) of that section;”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 2.
Government amendments 25, 50, 52 to 54 and 57.
The Solicitor-General
This is a substantial group that covers a range of issues, from zero-carbon homes to outer space and back again via the right to buy. Let me begin with new clause 3.
In their growth review, published in March 2011, the Government set out their intention to reform the Outer Space Act 1986 by introducing an upper limit on liability for United Kingdom operators. The aim was to help to level the playing field for United Kingdom companies competing for international business. UK space operators have long argued that the unlimited liability placed on them by section 10 of the Act is very difficult to manage in terms of financing. Given the global nature of the space industry, that could result in work being lost to countries from outside the United Kingdom. The licensing regime enables the UK Government—among other things—to offset some of the unlimited liability to which they are exposed under the terms of the United Nations liability convention.
Section 10 of the Act requires licensees to indemnify the Government against any proven third-party costs resulting from their activities. That is an unlimited liability on licensees. As it is not possible to insure against unlimited liability, licensees are required to obtain third-party liability insurance both during the launch and while the satellite is in operation, with the UK Government a named beneficiary. If a claim were to exceed that amount, the Government could seek to recover the balance under section 10 of the Act.
In the growth review, the Government set out their intention of reforming the Act by introducing an upper limit on liability for UK operators. A two-part approach has been undertaken. Part 1—the announcement by the Minister for Universities and Science of a reduction in the compulsory insurance requirement from £100 million to €60 million—was well received. Part 2 involves a legislative change that will cap the unlimited liability at €60 million for the majority of missions. The chosen route for the achievement of that change would give the Secretary of State the power to set or vary the liability limit through the licensing regime, which will provide flexibility, and, we hope, lead to a level playing field. It may also help with the development of smaller satellite technology. CubeSats, for instance, offer lower-cost and possibly lower-risk access to space, along with growth opportunities for the UK.
New clause 6—which deals with mesothelioma—and amendment 19 introduce a power to enable Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to supply, without the need for a court order, the work history of deceased persons to their personal representatives and some dependants. That would be for the purpose of making a personal injury claim for the benefit of the deceased’s estate, or making a claim under fatal accidents legislation. The change will benefit the families and dependants of the deceased. It will enable them more quickly and easily to prove their claim for compensation against the person or organisation liable for the injury or death, including compensation for loss of dependency on the deceased. As I know that that proposal has all-party support, I do not intend to deal with it at greater length, but I will of course be happy to say more about it if that is required.
Philip Davies
I will be brief and do not intend to put any of my new clauses to the vote. My new clauses 10 to 14 deal with Sunday trading. They would completely liberalise the Sunday trading laws—that is what I would prefer—extend the current arrangements or put them on a more temporary basis. This country’s Sunday trading laws are out of date and absurd—they are completely unjustifiable. People talk about defending small shops, as the shadow Minister did, and say, “This measure helps small shops.” He has to realise that the world has moved on. The small convenience shops that are open on a Sunday are not Mr Miggins’s pie shop or Mrs Miggins’s greengrocers; the small convenience stores being protected by the current Sunday trading laws are Tesco Express, Sainsbury’s Local and Morrison’s Local.
Companies such as Tesco are probably quite pleased with the current arrangements, because they do not have to open their bigger stores, which sell goods at much lower prices. They can close the big stores and force everyone to go along to their small shops, where everyone has to pay a hugely inflated price for their shopping. Companies such as Asda cannot compete. The Labour party keeps saying, “We are concerned about the cost of living.” There is a cost of living crisis in this country, and what does it do? It opposes the measure that would have a massive effect on reducing the prices in the shops for people who shop on a Sunday. People are forced to go to higher priced shops such as Tesco Express rather than shop at a bigger store. It is absurd.
Easter Adjournment
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I remind Members that we will follow the usual procedure of speaking for about 10 to 15 minutes.
Business of the House
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think that the Leader of the House has got the gist of the right hon. Gentleman’s question.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but I am sure that the Leader of the House will manage to construct an answer from what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who chairs the Members’ fund and whose stewardship of it, along with that of his colleagues, has been very effective. I think that anyone who cares to read the explanatory notes accompanying his Bill will appreciate what a sensible and welcome reform he proposes. He might have been wondering whether, if the Bill receives its Second Reading tomorrow, the Government will table a money motion in support of it, and I can tell him that that would be our intention.
Christmas Adjournment
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of my speech, I inadvertently failed to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. May I correct that through your good offices, and apologise to the House?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I think that the clarification is already on the record.
Tom Brake
I wish I had not given way, because I do not know the answer to that question. However, I am sure that we can secure a written response for the hon. Gentleman, who has highlighted the fact that we have significant air quality issues to address in London. The Mayor does need to tackle them firmly. I know that he has launched certain initiatives, but the impact of vehicles is significant and we need to examine wider measures to try to tackle the problem.
My hon. Friend then discussed the Disclosure and Barring Service, which was previously the Criminal Records Bureau. I suspect that many hon. Members will have encountered issues with the CRB and the DBS relating to turnaround times. Often it is not clear where the delays are occurring, because sometimes they are in securing a response from the police. He touched on the issue of school governors, and I think we can all agree that they play an essential role and make a substantial contribution. I suspect that many hon. Members will have been, or may still be, a school governor. As he stated, they need specific skills, and he identified finance as an area where we perhaps need more people coming in. I encourage them to do so.
My hon. Friend touched on the issue of blue badges. He, like me, and I am sure other hon. Members, has experienced some issues relating to the changes that have taken place with that service. I am sure he represents very effectively his constituents who are experiencing difficulties because they were in receipt of a badge but now are finding that it is not available to them.
My hon. Friend mentioned hepatitis. The Department of Health recognises the public health importance of tackling viral hepatitis in England; it imposes a significant burden on the NHS, so he was right to highlight the importance of tackling it. He referred to the South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, which provides mental health services, expressing some concerns about that. Clearly I am not going to refer to any individual cases, but I hope that one thing he would take as a positive step forward is the fact that the Government and the Minister who leads on these issues have been strong in pushing for parity of esteem; in other words, people with mental health issues should be treated in exactly the same way as we would expect people who need to go through the acute health service to be treated. They should get identical quality of care and should see pathways that operate just as effectively.
My hon. Friend also touched on the exotic pet trade, which is a serious contributory factor to the threat of extinction faced by many endangered species. The UK Border Force is responsible for dealing with that, and we need to ensure that anyone dealing in that particular trade follows the rules and completes the right paperwork to ensure that everything is above board.
My hon. Friend mentioned Ray Woodcock, a great granddad who has just broken a Guinness world record, jumping 384 feet down into a flooded quarry. I will make sure that the Chief Whips hear of that, because it may have other potential uses for MPs who misspeak in this place.
Finally, my hon. Friend talked about Southend’s city of culture. It brought a smile to my face when he identified Southend as the alternative city of culture. That is something we can all smile about and welcome. I am sure we will follow developments carefully. I thank my hon. Friend for opening the debate. That leaves me a little bit of time to respond to the other contributions.
The first point that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) raised was about Afsana, a constituent of his who is stranded in Dubai. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has had the support that he needed from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the consular staff, although I understand perfectly why the family will feel that that is not sufficient, given the very serious predicament that their family member is in. I am pleased to hear that a meeting with the Minister has already been agreed, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will pursue the matter as assiduously in that meeting as he has done previously. I am sure that the FCO and consular staff will do everything in their power to help resolve the problem, although all of us who have had experiences of constituents abroad dealing with other legal systems know that that is one of the biggest challenges any Member of Parliament can face in taking up issues on behalf of constituents.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the issue of firefighters’ pensions. He obviously has extensive knowledge of that, which he brings in a very positive way to the Chamber this afternoon. He highlighted some aspects and recognised that it is a good scheme for firefighters. He will know, and I know as a result of a chance meeting with a firefighter while I was out canvassing at the weekend, that the contribution that firefighters make to their pensions is quite significant. The figure that I was quoted was £900 a month as a pension contribution. I am aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), has stated his willingness to engage with the Fire Brigades Union, and I hope that will be pursued, as it is not in the interest of the FBU, the Government or the wider public for strike action to go ahead. If there is a possibility of the talks finding a resolution, let us pursue that option.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) is in his place. I wish him every success in seeking out that plum role in panto. That was everyone’s cue for “Oh no, you don’t”, but they were too slow. My right hon. Friend referred to HS2 and the third runway. It is clear that, particularly in relation to HS2, there will be many opportunities to discuss that further in the months and years to come.
My right hon. Friend dwelt at some length on his interests. From the trip that we both undertook to Venezuela and Brazil some year ago, I know about his interest in environmental matters, wildlife and especially bird life. I recommend that he does not walk around Clapham common in the dark with his bat detection material. He may want to choose another location. He spoke about the Democratic Republic of the Congo and concerns there about its wildlife park. I agree that that is a significant issue, but the DRC has a much wider range of issues that we need to contribute towards resolving, as well as that concern. My right hon. Friend raised the issue of upland habitats here. He may have the opportunity at DEFRA questions on 9 January to raise that and other environment-related matters that he referred to.
There are a couple of issues that I will draw to the attention of the Ministry of Justice—vicarious liability and the changes to legal aid, which my right hon. Friend flagged up. He finished by thanking both the Metropolitan police and the staff of the House, and I join him in that. We all know as Members of Parliament that unfortunately the activities of a very small number of people tend to rub off on the activities of others who have no involvement in inappropriate activities.
The hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) raised the serious issue of eating disorders. It is something the Government take very seriously, particularly among young people. We know that those most affected are young people between the ages of 14 and 25, and there might be as many as 1.1 million people—a substantial number—in the UK directly affected. Since April the relevant services have been commissioned by NHS England, so Members who represent English constituencies should raise concerns on the matter with it.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who is no longer in his place, raised a large number of issues. He wanted us to remember 3 Mercian, which we will do. He referred to the role of the trust special administrator at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. I think that he was pleased with some of the outcomes of the process but had concerns about others. I echo those concerns in relation to my local hospital, St Helier. It is a category 6 hospital, so one of the safest in the country, and the best in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for dealing with hip fractures, yet it is proposed, as a result of a clinician review, that its A and E and maternity departments should close, which I will fight very hard.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other health-related issues, which he might want to raise in health questions on 14 January. He also touched on HS2. Given that today we had Transport questions, in which HS2 featured prominently, followed by a statement from the Chair of the Transport Committee, I do not think that there is anything further that I could add. Finally, I was pleased to hear him speaking up for the Government’s position on international development. Following the actions of the previous Government, we are ensuring that we deliver 0.7% of GNI for international development. That gives us credibility around the world when we are talking about the subject. We are recognised internationally for that.
Like other Members, I winced and shuffled in my seat when the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) described the painful process of hysteroscopy. I hope that she, on behalf of us all, will thank her constituent and the other women for providing that information. I think that we need a considered response from the Department of Health. Perhaps more guidance could be issued, whether for patients or doctors, because clearly she has identified a pattern with that procedure and I think that it needs a detailed response.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) talked about beds in sheds. Members will know that the Prime Minister has visited Southall to look at that issue. We heard other contributions this afternoon on the private rented sector. It was clear from the cross-party consensus that emerged that something needs to be done. I am sure that the Backbench Business Committee would respond positively to a cross-party request to discuss those issues, because clearly it is unacceptable that people are living in sheds. It was noted that in Slough there were just over 6,100 houses where people were potentially living in sheds, although I suspect that some of them were cannabis farms, because of the heat generated. He also highlighted the number of fires that had happened over a three-year period—just under 350, with nine associated deaths. This not only has a very negative impact on the people who are having to live in those conditions; sometimes the consequences are significantly more serious.
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has yet responded to the housing Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who has written to him to say that he would be happy to meet him to discuss his concerns. He set out in his speech some possible solutions that I am sure the Minister would want to hear. Other Members made some important points that I am sure the Department for Communities and Local Government would appreciate hearing about.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised the issue of the third runway. On behalf of his local community, he has been an articulate and consistant advocate of not building that runway, under the coalition Government and under the previous Government. He also discussed HS2, the Fire Brigades Union dispute, and staffing in the House of Commons. He then talked about safer neighbourhood teams. As a London Member of Parliament, I think that unfortunately the changes that have happened mean that there is less visibility on the streets, and people are raising that in terms of the profile of the police. That is an area that we need to monitor. On the living wage, he highlighted the more positive developments in relation to MITIE and flagged up the actions that John Lewis might like to take in this respect. The Government are very supportive of employers who want to take that route, although one could take the view that some employers might find it difficult to provide the living wage.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) referred to a very difficult case of abuse involving UK and UN personnel that occurred many years ago and did not comply with or satisfy any of the compensation schemes that were available. I can understand why his constituent and he would want closure on the issue. I will certainly draw it to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence in terms of possible solutions.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned an infrastructure proposal regarding the A30 and the A303 and a bid for dualling, although he did not offer it up as an extremely long runway for Heathrow. He then talked about the village of Feniton and his concerns about flooding and the impact of housing development. There may be an opportunity for him to raise those issues as soon as we get back, because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will respond to questions on 9 January and the Department for Communities and Local Government will respond to questions on 13 January.
The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) complained that we were not having a themed debate today. He may or may not be aware that the Backbench Business Committee discussed the matter and felt that today’s debate should be in this format. Perhaps next time it will feel that it should be in the previous format, with themes. Perhaps housing could have been a theme for today’s debate, or fire brigade disputes—who knows what would have been appropriate? We have a Member here who will feed back the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and we will see what decision the Committee makes for future pre-recess Adjournment debates.
I echo the hon. Gentleman’s praise for the contribution that the staff in this place make to the way in which we work. He then dwelled on housing in London, picking up the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. He described the particular challenges faced in a borough like Islington—which I know about reasonably well having lived there some years ago—as regards the cost of housing and the need to build more affordable homes. I am not sure whether the Government would want to follow the hon. Member for Islington North down the route of regulating letting agencies, but he has identified an issue with private landlords that requires a solution. I will make sure that the proposal in his private Member’s Bill is drawn to the attention of the Department for Communities and Local Government to see whether it can provide a solution. Given that we have had substantial contributions on the issue of housing and the private rented sector in particular, the Backbench Business Committee may look favourably on a request for a debate early in the new year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), who has just left his place, thanked organisations in his constituency, including the Salvation Army and church groups. I am sure we would all want to echo those remarks. I will visit my local Salvation Army tomorrow to pick up some gifts for me to give to a family who cannot afford presents this Christmas. The Salvation Army is making a positive contribution at this festive time of year, as are church groups by organising lunches for people who might otherwise be alone.
My hon. Friend also referred to a couple of transport infrastructure projects and I will make sure that the Department for Transport is made aware of those two bids. I do not intend to visit cholesterol corner—it does not sound like a nice place to go—where people can get their arteries blocked in more ways than one: from KFC and McDonald’s to the traffic congestion at the junction.
I believe that I have touched on most or even all of the points that have been raised. In conclusion, I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Clerks, the Door Keepers, the shadow Deputy Leader of the House the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), every Member who has contributed to the debate, and the civil servants who have provided support to ensure that I and others were well briefed, as well as our constituency and Westminster staff. As Members of Parliament we are uniquely privileged in the positions we hold in this House and none of our work would be possible without the contribution that a whole range of people make to our lives.
I will finish with a big smile on my face, just to dispel the notion that I might be auditioning for “Grinch 3”. I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Before I put the question, may I thank all the Members who took part in the debate and wish everybody who stayed behind all the best for Christmas and the new year? I also thank all the staff of this House, wherever they work in it, for their efficiency and for making the lives of all Members so much easier. I also thank the public who visit this rare House of ours. Right, let’s put the question!
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
Amendments to Bills (Explanatory Statements)
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Caroline Lucas.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. One at a time. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to respond to the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) first.
Zac Goldsmith
My hon. Friend makes an interesting observation. It would be a beautiful irony and I would love to see it happen.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Brake
I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will agree that I tend to take many interventions and make a point of trying to respond to them. To respond to his point on the impact in Northern Ireland, clearly the new definition of controlled expenditure will have an impact on the devolved Administrations. The lowered registration thresholds will also have an impact in Northern Ireland. With regard to Northern Ireland Assembly elections, the amount that a third-party organisation can spend campaigning against a named candidate is being increased from £500 to £700 through this legislation.
Tom Brake
I beg to move amendment 32, page 12, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert ‘“where—
(a) the expenses fall within Part 1 of Schedule 8A, and
‘(b) the expenditure can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success at any relevant election for—
(i) one or more particular registered parties,
(ii) one or more registered parties who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of such parties, or
(iii) candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of candidates.”’.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 33
Amendment 101, page 12, leave out line 37 to line 9 on page 13 and insert—
‘“For election purposes” means activity which can reasonably be regarded as intended for the primary purpose of—
(a) promoting or procuring electoral success at any relevant election for—
(i) one or more particular registered parties;
(ii) one or more registered parties who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of such parties; or
(iii) candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of candidates.’.
Government amendments 34 to 45.
Tom Brake
Clause 26 sets out the test that third parties need to meet in order to incur controlled expenditure. There has been extensive comment from a number of bodies, such as charities and voluntary organisations, that the Bill will capture their ordinary campaigning activities. That was not the case. However, the Government gave an undertaking in Committee to revert to a test based on the wording of the existing legislation, which provides that controlled expenditure is only that
“which can reasonably be regarded as intended”
to promote or procure the electoral success of parties or candidates. The Government’s amendments meet that commitment.
I would like to thank the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Electoral Commission and others for the constructive discussion we have had in relation to the amendments. I accept that there is not total agreement on our amendments, but I know that the NCVO, for instance, is at least partially happy about the proposals we have come forward with.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have fewer than 20 minutes left and five Members wish to catch my eye. If we can divide the time evenly, we should get everybody into the debate.
Tom Brake
I wish to make a few brief comments. First, I say to the hon. Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) that the problem with someone dusting down their Second Reading speech is that they miss changes made to the Bill in the interim. I would, however, like to thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. I appreciate that organisations from all walks of life have expressed views—sometimes strong views—about the Bill, and I am grateful that so many have taken the time to share them.
The Bill is about transparency and giving the public confidence in our political system. I am sure that no Member would disagree that we must ensure that all those who impact on our democracy do so transparently, accountably and fairly—these measures will do that. This debate has covered a wide range of viewpoints. There is not time to address every point that has been raised, but I will quickly recap what this Bill will do, as that should address points raised. It will introduce a statutory register of consultant lobbyists to complement our existing transparency regime; it will fill a specific gap where it is not certain on whose behalf consultant lobbyists are lobbying; it will ensure that third parties campaigning at elections do so in a fully transparent manner; and it will give the public reassurance that trade unions which influence public life beyond their own members know who those members are. The Bill will bring greater transparency to our political system, as we promised to do, and I therefore commend it to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Allen
I will not answer my hon. Friend’s question because I would incur your wrath, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, were we able to debate under a proper programme motion, my hon. Friend could make those important points at some length.
Leaving aside the Electoral Commission, the bodies that will be hurt most by any legislation of this sort were also not consulted. It takes a truly heroic effort in this place to get 10,000-odd charities up in arms. Members have been contacted by many such organisations over the past weeks and months, and I am sure that even today they will have received lengthy protests from key organisations such as the Royal British Legion and Oxfam who are saying, “We’ve not had our say. We feel we’re being railroaded.” It is not the role of Parliament to push people and push legislation through without a proper case being made by the Government.
Part 2 is the most sensitive part of the Bill, and if this programme motion is passed we may come to it tomorrow, but most of the bodies and people who will be most affected by it feel that the whole of part 2 should be withdrawn. If there had been a Cabinet reshuffle at the higher levels perhaps an incoming Leader of the House might have said, “I’m blowed if I’m going to be hung with this for the next two months,” and might have scrapped it. We are going to soldier on and try to make the best of it, however, but we can only make the best of it if we have the time to scrutinise properly some of the Bill’s key issues.
People outside this House do not want us to play games. This is the first time in my political life that I have asked colleagues not to support a programme motion. I am generally a great advocate of programme motions, but I oppose this programme motion because of what charity after charity, and voluntary sector organisation after voluntary sector organisation, and third sector organisation after third sector organisation, are saying. Civil Society says in its briefing about the programming:
“There has been a lack of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation with organisations that might be affected by the change which is in stark opposition to the supposed purpose of the Bill which is to increase transparency and oversight”,
not reduce it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I have been very lenient, but we are in danger of repeating arguments by bringing different organisations into the discussion. I understand the frustration that the Chair of the Select Committee feels, but he will understand that our debate is purely about the timetabling and nothing else; it is not about the detail of what may or may not come.
Mr Allen
I strongly support your view, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will not repeat anything, and will instead move on to the very long list of brand new points that I can put before the House.
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations makes a completely new point about the programming:
“We also have concerns about the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny and the lack of consultation with organisations that might be affected by the changes in order to ensure they are clear and workable. Government is committed”
—apparently—
“to the national Compact which states that ‘where it is appropriate, and enables meaningful engagement, conduct 12-week formal written consultations, with clear explanations and rationale for any shorter time-frames’”.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know I am quite mature in years, but my hearing is still fairly acute and I think we are hearing about the programme of the Government. About 15 minutes have passed since we last heard about the programming of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I shall repeat what I just said to Mr Allen: we need to get to the point. This debate is about the programme motion. I have allowed a little leeway, and he has used that leeway. I think he is now in danger of taking advantage of the Chamber, and I am sure he is about to finish.
Mr Allen
Since, sadly, I am accusing the Government of taking advantage of this Chamber, it is incumbent upon me not to do so, but I am not talking about the Government’s programme; I am instead talking about the programme motion, by which I mean the timetabling.
This timetable is an insult to those who work day and night in charities; it is an insult to Members of this House who are receiving representations about what is a very important matter but are unable to voice them in this Chamber; and—above all, perhaps—it is an insult to our legislative colleagues in the second Chamber who expect us to send them a Bill in halfway-decent repair.
Speaking for my Select Committee, which has members from parties on both sides of the House, we have worked incredibly hard to try to fulfil our role for this House and for Parliament. Unless we are allowed to debate these issues properly and fully, I will ask my colleagues to vote against the programme motion.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker
May I say to the Leader of the House that I did not realise that Mr Cash wished to come in? I call Mr Cash.
Mr Cash
I am sorry for inhibiting my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for a short moment.
I just want to endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said and draw attention to the real reasons why this matter is so important. I have already made the point that the proposal would simply create confusion and the extreme likelihood that there would be interpretations by the courts as a result of a difference of language between what is contained in schedule 1 and the wording of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. It is best left alone; that was the essence of what the Lord Chief Justice said.
As someone who served on the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, I want to make something absolutely clear. Curiously enough, the word privilege is almost a misnomer. It is not a privilege; it is a necessity. I would say that of any Member of this House. We cannot have freedom of speech to protect our constituents without having the right to be able to say whatever needs to be said in this House to protect them. That is whether in relation to HS2, on which I share the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan)—I am totally against it—or anything else. The absolute necessity for maintaining the right of an MP to speak within the framework of the rules of the House must not be interfered with by any court or any outside agency. We have to have that right as that is the essence of our democracy.
What we are really discussing here, apart from the very important question—I concede that it is important—of not getting into a conflict with the courts or having differences of emphasis or wording that could give rise to interpretations, is that it is absolutely essential to remember that these issues are for the benefit of our constituents and the national interest.
In 1999 the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege —our predecessor committee—said:
“Parliament makes the law and raises taxes. It is also the place where ministers are called to account by representatives of the whole nation for their decisions and their expenditure of public money. Grievances great and small can be aired regardless of the power or wealth of those criticised.
In order to carry out these public duties”—
I repeat the word “public”—
“without fear or favour, parliament and its members and officers need certain rights and immunities. Parliament needs the right to regulate its own affairs free from intervention by the government or the courts. Members need to be able to speak freely, uninhibited by possible defamation claims.”
The Irish Government argued recently at the European Court of Human Rights that
“parliamentary immunity has developed throughout the world not as a constraint upon the rights of the citizen but as a fundamental liberty.”
I could enlarge on this but I do not need to do so.
Mr Cash
That is the very point I am seeking to make. I would also point out that a number of other countries have got themselves into serious turmoil and trouble where the right of the people to speak freely is inessential and incidental to the manner in which their constitution is construed. In many countries, whether dictatorships or quasi-democracies, the inhibitions on the freedom of their members of parliament to speak as they must on behalf of the national interest or on behalf of their constituents is constrained by a lot of activities which, in effect, put them in fear. It is precisely because this House as a whole ensures, through its own regulation of the behaviour of Members, that that freedom is maintained, that we can guarantee that we can serve our constituents in the national interest.
That is all I need to say, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I need to say something, just to help you, because obviously I know that you want to discuss the new clause and do not want to drift into the wider arena. I am sure you will have appreciated me trying to help you with that.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Tagged on to this debate is a report by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which I chair, that we published on the day of the Bill’s Second Reading. It was all a bit of a hurry because of the Government’s haste to get these provisions into Parliament. On 18 July I wrote to the Leader of the House with some major concerns that we had about the Bill’s implications for Members of Parliament and the consequential implications for the codes of conduct—our own rules in relation to Members’ activities.
The House of Commons has long been concerned about lobbying. As early as 1695, the House resolved:
“The Offer of any Money, or other Advantage, to any Member of Parliament, for the promoting of any Matter whatsoever, depending, or to be transacted, in Parliament, is a high Crime and Misdemeanour, and tends to the Subversion of the Constitution.”
Successive resolutions have restricted what Members are permitted to do. The current code of conduct states:
“No Member shall act as a paid advocate in any proceedings of the House.”
Indeed, the “Guide to the Rules relating to the Code of Conduct of Members” makes it clear that prohibition on advocacy is not limited to proceedings in the House or approaches to Ministers but extends to approaches to colleagues and to any servants of the Crown. Consultant lobbying is usually understood to consist of the acceptance of money in direct return for lobbying activity. Under the code of conduct as currently written, this would almost certainly be a breach of the advocacy rule. We noted that the requirements for the registration of Members’ financial interests are far more detailed than the Bill’s requirements for entries in the register of consultant lobbyists. There was grave concern that had it remained as first published, there would have been major conflict between Members of this House and organisations outside.
We recognised that although Members are permitted to have outside interests, a Member who carried out consultant lobbying would be breaking the current rules of conduct of the House. None the less, we also recognised that that could change if the House changed its rules to permit such activity, though we considered that to be extremely unlikely. If that were the case, Members would then not be immune from the general, nor should they be. If the advocacy rule were ever rescinded, a Member who acted as a consultant lobbyist should be subject to the same rules as any other such lobbyist.
We had to draw up the report very quickly because of the timetable that we have had for the Bill. We brought up two major concerns in our conclusion. First, we said:
“In our view, the difficulties about the way in which the legislation applies to Members of Parliament would be swept away if paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 was removed.”
The Government’s amendment 29 does that, I am pleased to say. As has been clearly pointed out in the debate, under the paragraph I would be potentially restricted to lobbying the Secretary of State or a senior civil servant only on the basis of a constituent having contacted me about an issue. That would be nonsensical. It would mean that to be able to do the work that I have been doing on public health for many years in this Chamber, I would first have to get a constituent to write to me about it. It could also affect my ability to go to a recognised charity that is concerned about public health issues and work with it in the hope of getting more effective legislation. We all do that, as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) said.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 6—Duty to report—
‘The Registrar will report annually to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons on the operation of the Register.’.
Amendment 84, page 54, line 15, after ‘satisfied’, insert ‘after consultation with the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons’.
Government amendment 31.
Amendment 85, page 3, line 7, leave out from ‘business’ to end of line 8.
Amendment 86, page 3, line 15, at end insert—
‘(h) the name of the employer and the address of employer‘s business; and
(i) the names of members of staff employed by the person registered.’.
Government amendments 17 and 18.
Amendment 87, page 3, line 21, at end insert—
‘(c) the approximate value of the registered person’s spending on their lobbying activities for each quarter.’.
Government amendments 19 and 20.
Amendment 89, page 3, line 37, after ‘client information’, insert ‘and spending on lobbying’.
Government amendments 21 and 22.
Amendment 100, page 3, line 47, at end add—
‘(c) if the registered person engaged in lobbying in the quarter in return for payment (whether or not the payment has been received), the purpose and subject matter of the lobbying services provided by the registered person; and
(d) if the registered person received payment in the quarter to engage in lobbying (whether or not the lobbying has been done) the purpose and subject matter of the lobbying services provided by the registered person.’.
Amendment 90, page 4, line 7, at end insert—
‘(7) Spending on lobbying for each quarter is the approximate value of the amount a registered person spends on their lobbying activity for each quarter.’.
Government amendments 23 and 24.
Amendment 92, page 4, line 40, after ‘appropriate’, insert ‘including in written form’.
Amendment 93, page 5, line 26, leave out Clause 10.
Government amendment 25.
Amendment 94, page 6, line 28, after ‘incomplete’, insert ‘or misleading’.
Amendment 95, page 6, line 36, after ‘incomplete’, insert ‘or misleading’.
Amendment 96, page 6, line 42, after ‘incomplete’, insert ‘or misleading’.
Government amendments 26 and 27.
Mr Thomas
Reasonable though the Leader of the House was about the previous set of amendments, he will have to reach unprecedented oratorical heights for the Opposition not to press new clause 4 to a vote. The new clause seeks to establish a code of conduct that would help establish standards of behaviour for consultant lobbyists. Such codes exist already in a number of other countries that have tough lobbying regulations—Canada and Australia, for example, both have codes of conduct to which registered lobbyists must adhere. Indeed, this House’s Political and Constitutional Reform Committee also recommended a statutory code of conduct.
There was some debate in Committee about the elements of a possible code of conduct, and that point bears dwelling on and expanding a little. Surely, top of the list of standards in a code of conduct should be the requirement that lobbyists and their clients tell the truth to those they meet. Another element that might be worthy of inclusion in the code is that lobbyists must be open about who their clients are. Members of the House, Ministers and permanent secretaries are entitled to know who is lobbying them and for what purpose. Surely there should be a requirement that lobbyists advise their clients if they are about to commit illegal or unethical acts.
It is not clear to Labour Members—and, I suspect, to other Members—why Ministers do not want such basic principles of good behaviour enshrined in a code of conduct. In Committee, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), suggested:
“The experience of regulators in other jurisdictions clearly shows that statutory codes of conduct for lobbying can be unworkable and unenforceable.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 786.]
Sadly, she did not feel able to give the Committee any more information than that bald statement. If it remains the Government’s position that they do not support a code of conduct, it would be helpful for the House, those in the other place and those who watch our proceedings if they set out clearly the international examples that led them to the conclusion that statutory codes of conduct are unworkable and unenforceable.
If there is no code of conduct, we will be in the rather odd position in which the registrar can punish lateness in providing or submitting information, but cannot punish lobbyists who deliberately hide who they are working for from those they are lobbying. Before being drawn up, a code of conduct would need to be properly consulted on with all relevant stakeholders, including the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I accept there are already a number of voluntary codes of conduct in the lobbying industry, some of which are extremely comprehensive. Sadly, however, not every lobbyist is a member of one or other of those voluntary codes.
Gavin Devine, chief executive of MHP Communications, one of the bigger lobbying firms, noted there is a risk that simply securing a place on the register might enable lobbyists to imply they had a kitemark or some sort of endorsement, without having to operate to particular standards. Other evidence presented to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee suggested there might be an economic issue for some who decide to register and pay the registration fee, but do not want to pay any more for the cost of being a consultant lobbyist, and therefore would no longer be part of a voluntary code of conduct.
Surely, there is a risk that, once registered, a lobbyist will simply decide not to bother with any of the voluntary codes of conduct. On 9 September, the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) tried to argue, interestingly, that peer pressure would drive lobbyists to adhere to a voluntary code of conduct. Unfortunately, given that there are several voluntary codes across the industry, that would risk having different standards. Having one clear basic code of conduct would offer clarity about the minimum standards that lobbyists should meet, avoid confusion about which voluntary register was the best one and offer clarity to the House and the Government about the standards required of those who seek to lobby us. A code of conduct might also help to regulate those who want to lobby the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Greater London Assembly or the National Assembly for Wales, were they to be included in the code of conduct.
One voluntary code that bears looking at is that produced by the Association of Professional Political Consultants. Why do not Ministers think that its 18 elements should be standardised across the industry? Item 2 states:
“Political consultants must act with honesty towards clients and the institutions of government.”
Surely, we all want to see consultant lobbyists acting with honesty towards clients and the institutions of government. Why do the Leader of the House and his colleagues in government think that such a provision should not be written into a code of conduct and that every consultant lobbyist should have to abide by that most basic of standards?
The APPC code also states that lobbyists
“must use reasonable endeavours to satisfy themselves of the truth and accuracy of all statements made or information provided to clients or by or on behalf of clients to institutions of government.”
Again, that seeks to continue the principle of truthfulness among those who seek to lobby Parliament and the institutions of government. Why should there not be such a reasonable expectation that when we are told something, it is truthful and accurate? It is not clear, certainly among the Opposition, why Ministers think that such basic standards should not be required of all those who lobby.
The APPC code also makes it clear that those who sign it should be
“open in disclosing the identity of their clients and must not misrepresent their interests.”
Again, I ask the Leader of the House why such a basic standard for the lobbying industry should not be enshrined in a code of conduct. Why should everyone who seeks to lobby us not be required to meet that most basic of standards?
Another provision that might be included in a code is the requirement that lobbyists do not make misleading, exaggerated or extravagant claims to clients. Anyone who has followed the unfortunate publicity that some lobbyists have generated will be aware that some have made exaggerated claims for their influence on the Government or Members of Parliament. Again, a basic requirement that lobbyists should not make misleading, exaggerated or extravagant claims would surely help to protect those who use the services of the lobbying industry. Why do Ministers not think that clients should be protected from such basic bad behaviour by a would-be lobbyist and therefore have it written into a code of conduct?
Interestingly, the APPC code deals with payments and offers of entertainment and mementoes. It makes it clear that
“political consultants must not offer or give, or cause a client to offer or give, any financial or other incentive to”
somebody in government
“that could be construed in any way as a bribe or solicitation of favour”
Again, that must be a basic standard we would want all consultant lobbyists to abide by. If one shares that view, it should be written into a code of conduct, so that all consultant lobbyists have to abide by it, not just those who, in this case, choose to be members of the APPC.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. Before the hon. Lady replies to that point, may I suggest that she will want to return to the subject of audit certification?
Yasmin Qureshi
I will come to that, Sir Edward. The need for certification will cause financial harm to the unions, and we do not need it. It will not deal with the mischief that the legislation on lobbying was supposed to address. All it will do is impose an unfair financial burden on the trade unions, which rely on the subscriptions of ordinary members.
Derisory comments are constantly being made about the trade unions, but it is important to remind ourselves what they are arguing for. I get letters from unions lobbying me. For example, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers contacted me when there was talk of Sunday working during the Olympics. I also get letters from trade unions about pension rights, maternity rights, the minimum wage, health and safety, living conditions and better terms and conditions. What is there to be ashamed of about those things? What is wrong with a body arguing for those things?
Why are Conservative Members always having a go at the unions? They make it sound as though the unions are some kind of sinister organisations, but they are not. They are full of ordinary working people, and they have always fought for working people’s rights. The Conservatives should be championing the trade unions, rather than making derisory remarks about them and insulting them in the Chamber. This legislation is a clear example of their vindictive attitude towards the trade unions. The unions do not have a lot of money in the first place, but what they have will now be wasted on this unnecessary bureaucratic burden. The obligation that the Government are proposing will not deal with the mischief that the lobbying Bill is trying to deal with. That mischief relates to big business, to sinister deals and to cash being passed in underhand ways. That is what we are trying to deal with, but the Bill categorically fails on every single level.
This last part of the Bill illustrates the Government’s pure vindictiveness, and it has no purpose. We should all reject it. All Members of Parliament should vote against this Bill, and particularly against part 3. If Members really care about working people, as they all say they do, they should not allow this additional and unnecessary burden to be imposed on the trade unions. It will not deal with the mischief that the Bill was supposed to address.
Mr Binley
I am slightly confused by the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, given what we have heard from many leading trade unionists about the possibility of strikes over the next six months. Does he not recognise that that poses a sizeable danger to the country’s economy, or is he telling me that the strikes will not happen because what the trade union leaders are saying is a sham?
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)
Order. I hope the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) will not stray too far down that road, and will return to the subject of the clause and amendments. He has performed very skilfully so far.
John Healey
Indeed so, Sir Edward.
As a former member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the steps, linked to the clause, that any union needs to take before contemplating industrial action are already highly complex. They are legally specified, and they set a number of very high hurdles for any group of trade union members who wish to consider industrial action. As for his general point, it is often the determination of union members to take industrial action if necessary, and as a last resort, that causes employers to see sense, negotiate properly and, in many cases, solve the problems at hand.
Let me sum up the position. The number of days lost to strike action is at a near all-time low. Industrial action is always a last resort. The series of legislative steps that any group of trade union members must take before engaging in lawful industrial action are already highly complex, lengthy and tightly specified in law, but clause 36 will make that specification much tighter, and will make it much more difficult for unions to take such action. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) pointed out, there is no legal right to strike in this country, and any industrial action lays a trade union open to being sued for inducing and encouraging members to breach their employment contracts. It is only the immunity from being sued, which comes from following all the steps specified in existing legislation, that will be made more difficult by the provisions in clause 36.
Too often in recent years, employers—not just large employers such as Balfour Beatty, Serco and London Midland—instead of dealing with the grievance at hand, and instead of consulting, negotiating and discussing the problems that they face with their own employees and dealing with the dispute, have looked for legal ground to try to prevent any industrial action through the law courts. The duty in clause 36 to provide the membership audits and certificates, and the potential investigations on the back of any complaints under the auspices of the certification officer, are likely to make it much easier for employers to find legal grounds and to take legal action to prevent union members from taking proper, legitimate industrial action. Clause 36 will create a mountain of data and paperwork which will be at the fingertips of employers well in advance of any particular risk of industrial action or dispute.
Mr Anderson
That is par for the course in this debate, Mr Sheridan. The Government are trying to stifle debate, and they are doing that by pushing the Bill through Parliament in record time. They do not want to hear the truth. They do not want to hear the facts. There is a thread running through this debate. It is not about the clauses; it is not about the words on the paper; it is about a political fix. The Minister’s party is colluding with the Tory party in an attempt—a direct attempt, as we heard yesterday—to fix the people in this country so that their voices are dumbed down.
The 1992 Act created the office of commissioner for the rights of trade union members, or CROTUM. There was also a Scottish commissioner for the rights of trade union members, or SCROTUM. That is what the debate, and the Bill, are about. It is fitting in this context. That office was set up deliberately to encourage disgruntled trade union members to get out of their unions and undermine them.
The Minister said that I should return to the subject of the clause, and I shall do so now. Let me ask this: why are we here? This debate ought to be driven by the huge public concern that exists in this country about cash for questions, cronyism, dinners at No. 10 and the buying of favours. We ought to be discussing what was revealed yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann): the fact that private individuals pumped £250,000 into his constituency to try to prevent him from becoming Member of Parliament for Bassetlaw. We should be discussing those issues, rather than the minutiae of legislation that is already more than adequate.
As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), 40 million people have been registered on union lists in the last seven years, and there has not been one complaint. The people of this country are not concerned about what certification officers are getting up to; they are concerned about cronyism. They are concerned about the influence that Murdoch has, and the influence that private people have. They are concerned about people such as Asil Nadir and Michael Brown, who are languishing in jail while the Government parties keep money that they stole.
The Temporary Chairman (Jim Sheridan)
Order. I remind the Committee that we must stick to debating clause 37; we seem to be wandering away from it.
Ian Murray
Thank you, Mr Sheridan. I shall certainly try not to wander off topic.
It is worth pondering the question of the compatibility of these provisions with the European convention on human rights. A vast number of organisations, including the well-respected organisation Liberty, have raised that issue. Liberty believes that part 3 should be removed in its entirety, and I could not agree more. It believes the proposals breach article 11 on freedom of assembly and association, which takes us back to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) who was worried about the impact of this part of the Bill on trade union members, and article 8. For many individuals, membership of a trade union is a deeply private choice.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In light of the fact that so many issues could not be debated in Committee, have you had any notice from the Government that they intend to give House more time on Report so that those issues may be debated properly?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have had absolutely no notice of that. However, as he is well aware, it is up to the Government to make the timetable.