Parliamentary Standards

Lord Mann Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): Will the Leader of the House make a statement outlining in greater detail the possible changes, suggested by the Prime Minister on television, to the role of two Committees in regulating complaints about fellow MPs?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The House will be aware that complaints concerning the conduct of hon. Members, including that they have breached the Members code of conduct, are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and then considered by the Standards Committee. Additionally, since May 2010 issues relating to Members’ pay and expenses from that date onwards, including consideration of complaints, are undertaken by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

So two bodies are engaged with the issue of regulating the conduct of Members. As of now and for the future, in relation to expenses, IPSA is a wholly independent authority. Any issue would be considered by its compliance officer. The officer has powers to order repayment and to impose fines. Appeals may be made to a lower tier tribunal. Of course, IPSA is not responsible for considering issues relating to the expenses system prior to the last general election, nor other matters of conduct.

In January 2013, the Standards Committee was reconstituted following the decision of this House of 12 March 2012, reflected in Standing Order No. 149. This brought in three lay members. They participate in all the deliberations of the Committee. The Chair of the Standards Committee, by convention, seeks consensus amongst all the members of the Committee. The lay members, additionally, have a specific right to submit an opinion on any report to the House, and to have it published, under Standing Order No. 149. It is the job of this House, where necessary, to enforce the decisions of the Standards Committee.

The regulation of the conduct of Members is the responsibility of this House. For a wholly external body to consider complaints relating to the conduct of Members in this House, for example, on participation in debates and the registration of financial interests, risks undermining parliamentary privilege. That is why the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner and the role of lay members are incorporated within the work of a Select Committee of this House.

We have a relatively new system in place for the regulation both of parliamentary expenses and for independent input to the Standards Committee. Both should give the public greater confidence in the system. We must, however, seek to make these regulatory processes more widely understood and more transparent. If we can strengthen the independent input whilst respecting the exclusive cognisance of Parliament, we should do so. As the Prime Minister said, whilst these are matters for the House and not for the Government alone, we are open and willing to consider approaches which would further strengthen our regulatory system.

[John Mann]

I suspect that the Leader of the House has not had the opportunity to spend time on the doorstep in recent days. If he had, he would have found that there is virtual unanimity out there among the British people that Members of Parliament should not sit in judgment on Members of Parliament and that there should be no self-regulation by MPs of MPs. There are other issues about which the public are angry, but on this issue the Leader of the House has the power to initiate and to do something. Why will he not come forward with proposals immediately to end self-regulation in this House and in doing so, in the interests of transparency, ensure that the recordings of the Committee are made public so that people can see on what basis the Committee overturns the views of the independent Commissioner for Standards?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman underestimates me. From my conversations with members of the public, it is very clear that many members of the public are not aware—even now—that, from May 2010 onwards and for the future, the expenses of Members of this House, including any complaints relating to expenses, are considered wholly independently by IPSA, which would, in the event of there being any overpayment or incorrect claim, have the power both to require repayment and to levy fines. That is wholly independent.

We must be aware—it is also clear—that were we to seek, for example, to make the Standards Committee or the Commissioner wholly independent, we would end up with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards no longer having access to parliamentary privilege in relation to her investigations, which presently she does by virtue of her investigation being part of the proceedings of the Standards Committee of the House. It would be much more difficult for her to fulfil her role in the way in which she currently fulfils it.

As for the relationship between the Commissioner and the Committee, in my experience the Committee is wholly transparent about its decision-making process—about the arguments that it has examined and the decisions that it has reached—but that is a matter for the Committee, not for me.

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

Lord Mann Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso]

I am very aware that “shall”—that is probably the word I would look for—would achieve consensus across the House, but not on the Government Benches. I would rather stick with the consensus I have and that will go through than die in a ditch for something that will not.

That is my argument in a nutshell. I urge my hon. Friends to accept the very considerable concession from the Government, which takes us much closer to the objective that I seek to achieve.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I participate in this debate with great sadness, because within the last hour the funeral has taken place of Terry Butkeraitis, a miners’ leader and community organiser, and a legendary figure at the Glastonbury festival. Terry dedicated his life to the collective organisation of working people and proved that coal miners are as innovative, entrepreneurial and business-savvy as anyone else in society. Without question, Terry would have wanted me and his other friends to be in the Chamber to vote against further attacks on the unions, British values and our democracy.

When the Deputy Leader of the House listed what he claimed were the achievements of the Government’s openness, I thought I heard Terry heckling from that public gallery on high—demanding to know, if this Government are to show openness, where the documents relating to the miners’ strike are. We are still awaiting those documents.

Listening to the Deputy Leader of the House, I wondered whether his inability to explain the Bill in his 47 minutes was because he does not have a special adviser to tell him what it is all about. For some reason, I have never been a special adviser—I cannot understand why I have never been invited to apply for such a position; I do not know where they are advertised—but I have had opportunities over the years to have words with them. Frankly, the idea that any Member believes that special advisers and civil servants around Ministers do not have excessive influence over legislation is nonsense.

I will spare his blushes, because he did it for the right reasons, but one of the ministerial colleagues of the Deputy Leader of the House came up to me just last week and asked me to assist in tabling parliamentary questions to influence his civil servants and doubtless his special advisers to ensure that the legislation came forward more promptly.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

What did you say?

[John Mann]

Hansard will prove whether or not I did, and it may even identify the Minister.

Such things are almost incongruous to us in this House; perhaps it is less clear to people outside the Chamber that that is how business operates here. If someone says to me, “I’ve got a great idea to amend legislation. How do I get it through?”, particularly if my party was in power and I therefore knew and could track down the special advisers, the first thing I would say is, “Here’s the list of the people with influence. You’ve got to get to them, because Ministers’ time is so dictated by civil servants—it is deliberately jam-packed—that if you want any serious dialogue, you’ve got to get in first.”

Ministers of course ratify decisions and good ones ensure that their decisions go through, but, frankly, I can think of numerous examples where that has not been the case. Going to special advisers and civil servants, although usually with general ministerial consent—perhaps not from the particular Minister, but from No. 10 Downing street or the Minister’s boss—is precisely how someone can get changes made.

Anyone who has participated in a Public Bill Committee knows that. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) will remember that we sat on the Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill for what seemed like a year. I tabled an amendment about endangered species and wildlife. External bodies wanted it, and the Minister and colleagues from both sides of the Committee were very supportive of it, but the Minister’s response was, “Well, we need to check the details.” The only reason we got the amendment accepted was that we sat down with a special adviser with access to civil servants, and with the civil servants themselves, to clear every dot and comma so that when I got up in Committee, with support from all sides, the Minister said that the Government accepted the principle and would come back with their own wording—strangely, it was identical to mine—and it was later presented as their amendment. That is how it works here. If we are to control these lobbyists, of course the special advisers and civil servants—whoever is in power—have to be included.

I will finish by raising one other issue. I have in my possession documents showing that in recent times a senior, well-known lobbyist has set up a fake company—or a real company, but using a false name and date of birth. How will the Minister deal with that under the Bill? When such a case eventually comes before him and other Ministers, how will they deal with its unethical nature, and how will they respond to the influence of such a lobbyist over the Government? Does he agree that anyone who does that should automatically be prevented from having any access to any Ministers?

[Mark Durkan]

I rise to support amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1 which was tabled on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, of which I am a member, and to address the specious Government amendments (b) and (c), as well as to deal with the choices presented by the different amendments.

Let us be clear that amendment (a) builds on the amendment made in the other place so that special advisers are rightly caught within the scope of the part 1 of the Bill. Many of us argued for that during earlier stages of the Bill. Contrary to what the Leader of the House implied, we did so seriously; we did not press it to a Division simply because of time constraints and to allow debate on other matters. Only amendment (a) gives us the opportunity to make sure that senior civil servants and special advisers are within the scope of the Bill.

Amendments (b) and (c) to Lords amendment 1 almost amount to an act of misdirection by the Government. They may allow people to satisfy themselves that special advisers might be brought within the scope of the Bill. They will, however, leave senior civil servants outside its scope, which is exactly their aim. Of course, they may not even bring special advisers within the scope of the Bill. Amendment (b) is a fig leaf for the Leader of the House, who tabled it, and a figment in the minds of its supporters: there is no real risk that it will bring special advisers within the scope of the Bill. Those supporting it have clearly set their face against special advisers. Today and on previous occasions, they have given all the arguments why special advisers should not be included. We are fooling ourselves if we think that they will reconsider that issue in a matter of months between now and the election or some other time. That is absolute nonsense, and we would make real fools of ourselves if we fell for it.

Amendment (b) not only says that regulations “may” amend subsection (3) of clause 2, but is worded carefully to provide that

“communications made personally to a special adviser are within that subsection.”

When I see highly qualified and specific wording such as

“made personally to a special adviser”,

I wonder whether it is done deliberately. Perhaps there are all sorts of other forms of communication that can take place with a special adviser. For example, other parties like donors who do not have a direct interest or who are not consultant lobbyists, but who are friends of other businesses or interested parties, could communicate with a special adviser.

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

Lord Mann Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

On the human rights aspects, some Members have questioned whether the Bill is compliant. The Government’s assessment is that we consider all the spending limits in the Bill to be compatible with article 10 and have taken into account the amount that the third parties are permitted to spend under the reduced limits and the amount that they spend now. Clearly this has been given active consideration by the Government, as the hon. Gentleman would expect.

The main purpose of clause 26 is to align the activities that count as controlled expenditure for political parties and third parties. At present, the activities that count as controlled expenditure depend on whether we are referring to a political party or a third party. This means that spending by recognised third parties to assist a political party with the cost of an event would be captured as political party spending. However, if the recognised third party were independently to organise such an event itself—perhaps supporting that same party—such spending would not be caught. That highlights why we are trying to ensure that these two definitions—for third parties and for political parties—are brought into line.

We agree with the Electoral Commission that the current variation in what constitutes controlled expenditure for a political party and for a recognised third party is a potential gap in the regulation of spending in the UK elections, hence the intention behind clause 26. I believe that aligning the definition of controlled expenditure is a reasonable and sensible measure. However, to achieve this, the current definition of election materials needs to be revised. [Interruption.] I hope Members will let me finish what I am saying before trying to intervene. At present, recognised third parties incur controlled expenditure in connection with the production or publication of election material that is made available to the public. As a result, the Bill proposes to replace “election materials” with “for election purposes”; as we are aligning the activities with those of parties, we are also aligning the language of the test.

As we have said, the Government do not believe that we are significantly changing or widening the present test. Controlled expenditure would be incurred only where an organisation is promoting or procuring the electoral success of a party or candidate. However, I am conscious, as are the Government, of the concerns raised by right hon. and hon. Members that charities and voluntary organisations will be caught by the proposals in clause 26 and that the new language leaves room for ambiguity. This is not the Government’s intention.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that what he and the Government are proposing is that if a charity puts out a leaflet saying “Vote for people in favour of animal welfare”—I have voted recently in favour of animal welfare—and if, as happened at the last election in Bassetlaw, the Conservative party unwisely and unsuccessfully spends £250,000 sending direct mails to my electorate with pictures of some southern politician, the Conservative party will be able to do that but the charity will not?

[Tom Brake]

On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the political parties have sought to get an agreement on party political funding and that that was not possible. He can speculate on where the blockage for that was. On the question of the charity, I can assure him that if his charity campaigned in the run-up to the 2010 general election, we will ensure that it has the same level of clarity about what and how it can campaign as it did then. I hope that he will acknowledge that some of the concerns expressed today about the uncertainties for charities about what they can and cannot do exist under the present legislation. Those charities already have discussions with the Charity Commission and the Electoral Commission, under the present legislation, about what they can and cannot do

[John Mann]

So to confirm, the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the Conservative party could spend that money, which was wasted in Bassetlaw—or, indeed, it could spend it against him, very personally and directly—but that if a charity campaigned on how he or I voted, and if it persuaded us in the year running up to an election and then used its resources to e-mail its supporters or members, who then e-mailed us to congratulate us on how we voted, it could be caught out by the law.

[Tom Brake]

We could continue this rather unfruitful dialogue, or I can restate that, whatever the charity to which the hon. Gentleman refers did in the run-up to the 2010 general election, we will ensure the same clarity about what it can do in the run-up to the 2015 general election, and there would be no difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann]

Given what the Minister has just said, will he confirm that if a church or a synagogue were to organise an election hustings but chose explicitly to exclude a fascist candidate, that would be deemed to constitute electioneering against that candidate and would fall entirely within the remit of the Bill?

[Tom Brake]

That is the kind of issue that can be taken up with the Charity Commission and the Electoral Commission under existing legislation to establish whether that particular activity constituted electioneering. Nothing that we are proposing would affect that.

The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North seek, as previous amendments have done, to strike a balance between the reasonable intent of expanding the range of activities that incur controlled expenditure, and addressing concerns over the activities of charities and voluntary organisations being caught. Amendment 131 seeks to revise the definition of “for election purposes” as activity that can reasonably be regarded as promoting or procuring the success of a party or candidate. As the Government have indicated, we support the principle of that aim, and we will table amendments on Report which I hope will address that concern to the hon. Gentleman’s satisfaction.

A further amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman proposes that donations by a third party to a third party coalition group should count towards the donor third party’s spending limits. That seems to suggest that such a grouping would register as a separate, new third party and be subject to the wider controls of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The intention appears to be to repeal section 94(6) of PPERA. That provision stipulates that when two or more third parties work together as a group or coalition in pursuance of a common plan, the whole of the expenditure they incur as part of that coalition must count against each third party’s spending limit separately. However, the drafting of the amendment would not explicitly repeal section 94(6). The amendment also fails to consider that removing the existing provisions on acting in concert would remove a key anti-avoidance measure from PPERA. If total spending by a group of third parties acting as part of a common plan was not counted in full against each individual third party’s limits, it would allow third parties to form many coalitions on single issues in order to evade their spending limits. That would remove a vital safeguard from the integrity of the rules.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Even this Parliament did not exist under the benign reign of the Empress Pulcheria, so I am afraid that I am unable to propose doing that.

The purpose of my amendment, which I think fits very well with the clause, which I support, is to limit the ability of people in receipt of public funds to intervene in elections, particularly general elections. In this country we do not have state-funded political parties. We have Short money and Cranborne money to help the parliamentary activities of Opposition parties, but we have consistently decided that the state would not fund political parties and that they would instead be funded by private donations, trade union donations and business donations. It therefore seems to me to be completely wrong for third parties that might depend on subventions from the state for a large part of their income to be able to campaign as third parties in general elections.

[John Mann]

Will the hon. Gentleman let us know what he has against the Church of England, because this brutal amendment would particularly hurt the Church in its desire to host election rallies, hustings and so on?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It would not in any way affect the Church of England and, anyway, should the Anglican Church intervene in elections, that would be a constitutional impropriety. It has long been the case that it is thought improper for peers to involve themselves in general elections. Members will recall that Lord Salisbury would not intervene for that reason; he let others campaign for him. It would not be constitutionally right for bishops to intervene in general elections. The Church of England is not affected by my amendment and it is not, as a general rule in its putting forward of the gospel, getting public money.

[John Mann]

I am sorry to disabuse the hon. Gentleman, but if the Church of England or other religious bodies host any kind of hustings and exclude, say, a fascist from them, they will be caught not only by the Bill, but even more so by the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, because those bodies receive public funding. Local church buildings were given specific amounts in the last Budget.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. We heard during the debate on the previous clause that if a third party invites some but not all of the candidates to a hustings meeting, that may be part of the election expenses of the people involved. The Bill makes no change to that situation. It has always been a difficulty. It is an issue at every election and rightly so, because it would be entirely arbitrary for third parties to decide which party they liked and which they did not.

[John Mann]

Remarkably and unusually—perhaps uniquely—the hon. Gentleman has not done his homework. This Bill expands the definition of what constitutes expenditure and his amendment worsens it further and particularly and brutally picks on the Church of England more than any other organisation by hitting it with bureaucracy and the inability to host political events.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Again, I am in disagreement with the hon. Gentleman, who, surprisingly, I often agree with about many things. The amendment does not change in any way the definition of election expenditure. It leaves it as it is set out in the rest of the Bill. As I have said, that definition leaves unchanged the situation for people hosting hustings meetings. What I am doing makes not one iota of difference—not one jot of change—to the Church of the England. It will still be able to host meetings in churches and it would still be in difficulties if it decided not to invite particular candidates. That is quite right, because at the heart of democracy is the notion that candidates should be treated equally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am more than happy to say that this is the tip of the iceberg and that as the Titanic steams towards that iceberg, it is about to emerge to cut a swathe through its side. I firmly believe that it is absurd for the taxpayer to dish out money that is then spent paying lobbyists to lobby the Government. That is not why hard-pressed taxpayers pay income tax, VAT and other duties.

[John Mann]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is relatively new to the House. Let me point out to him that British Telecom provides assistance to the established political parties that it does not provide to independent candidates. Passing clause 27 with his amendment would therefore mean that British Telecom would be caught by the provisions of the Bill.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

As an established candidate before I was elected in the last election, I did not receive any help from British Telecom. I had no idea that British Telecom was funding the campaigns of candidates up and down the country. If that were a purely commercial activity, it would be mistaken in doing so because it would alienate half its customers who would dislike the party that it decided to support.

We have heard throughout these debates Opposition scaremongering about all these third parties lined up waiting to support individual candidates, with the question of whether that is against charities law or constitutionally improper being cast to one side. That is being brought back in the context of this clause. It is absolutely clear from the Bill, from what the Minister has said and from the law as it currently stands that these bodies—charitable bodies, in particular, but also firms such as British Telecom—are not going to be third parties because they do not and, indeed, should not intervene directly in the election of individual candidates or in supporting individual parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I would be shocked if Atos wanted to campaign. The idea that it should become a third party and campaign in seats is a monstrosity. Atos would be covered if it wanted to register as a third party, which is highly unlikely.

[John Mann]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, if he attends and is photographed at a garden party hosted by a landowner who is also a farmer receiving public funds during an election period, the expenditure will be caught by the amendment and the Bill?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman has a wonderfully vivid imagination and conjures up increasingly absurd scenarios that will obviously not be caught by the Bill.

[John Mann]

The hon. Gentleman would have been caught by his amendment. Is it not the case that he took great pleasure in being photographed repeatedly at such events held by major landowners when fighting, quite legitimately, for his seat? Those who host such events would be caught by the amendment, so his proposal is almost suicidal.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman assumes I have a much more salubrious social life than I have. I wish I constantly enjoyed a round of garden parties during general election campaigns. I am sorry to disappoint him that that is not how life is in North East Somerset. I am afraid that the picture he conjures is false. That situation does not arise under the Bill. Ingenious though his vision is, it does not get away from the fundamental point that Governments have a duty to spend taxpayers’ money carefully. They also have a duty of trust to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not misspent on purposes for which it was not intended. The Government, who are very powerful when in office, have a particular obligation not to fund their friends who can then use the money they receive to support the Government’s efforts to remain in office. That is a risk that the Opposition have pooh-poohed, but it is a real risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann]

On unintended consequences, has my hon. Friend considered the implications of the Oldham East and Saddleworth election petition judgment, whereby the number of votes influenced by the action was not a consideration? By implication, the amount of spending by which one might breach the rules would not in itself be the issue; rather, it would be whether there had been a breach. The complexity of the rules could lead to election petitions and to elected Members being thrown out of the House.

[Angela Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend. What he said provides further evidence to show how this Bill was not properly thought through before it was brought before us. It shows, too, the amount of work that should have been done and the issues that should have been sorted out before it was brought here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

I hope that as we proceed—and it should not be forgotten that we are only at the second stage of the process, given that there was no pre-legislative scrutiny—we shall be able, bit by bit, to pull the Bill back into some sort of rationality. I do not expect it to be perfect, and I think that we shall need to revisit it in a year’s time, but I also think that we should put our shoulder to the wheel, as our charities and voluntary organisations are asking us to do. We do not have much choice: we should do the right thing by them. I hope that as the Bill proceeds through its various stages, there will be a number of opportunities for us to ensure that it is, if not a masterpiece, at least something that will tumble along rather like a wagon that has square wheels but is travelling in roughly the right direction.

[John Mann]

Has my hon. Friend’s Committee had an opportunity to consider the ramifications of the electoral judgment in Oldham? Everyone is concentrating on the impact on charities and third parties, but we should also consider the impact on candidates. If a third party were to spend a penny more than was allowed on promoting a candidate, an election petition would succeed. The ruling on the election petition at Oldham was based on a precedent 100 years ago. Is it not possible that election petitions, whether valid or not, will be issued regularly on the basis of a few pence?

[Mr Allen]

The simple answer to my hon. Friend’s question is no: the Committee has not had time to look at those matters, and neither has anyone else. The unfortunate fact of the way in which this process was rushed through—the Bill was presented the day before the House rose, and was given a Second Reading the day after it reconvened—did not allow for any of the sensible accountability that the House should expect.

My hon. Friend has, however, made an excellent point. Indeed, excellent points have been made from all sides throughout the debate. I think that we should value what Members can bring to bear on this process, and I think that if the Government care to listen—and they are starting to listen—we will end up with a much better Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

My particular concern about the state funding of charities and outsourcing of services is that they should not be in a position to use that money to lobby for more Government funds. The third sector’s increasing reliance on Government largesse has provoked lots of discussion and caused considerable concern. Critics have accused Governments of using statutory funding to silence belligerent charities or to politicise good causes.

“Guido Fawkes” says:

“A charity that relies in the main part on taxes is no more a charity than”

a lady of the night

“is your girlfriend.”

On the serious issue of lobbying for more money, we should be cautious and ensure that it is not misspent and that the regulation of lobbying should catch up with the fact that the third sector has changed dramatically in recent years and, indeed, that the historic restrictions on political campaigning and political involvement by charities, on which the Charity Commission used to be very firm, have been relaxed.

[John Mann]

Could the hon. Gentleman give one example?

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does the hon. Gentleman want an example of how a charity would be affected by the Bill?

[John Mann]

Could he name one charity that is using public funds to lobby in the way he describes?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I have considerable concerns about Shelter, which provides not shelter but advice and which is often engaged in campaigning that many Members would view as political.

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

Lord Mann Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point. I do not think that it is right, without proper consultation, to seek to quash the kinds of activities that are political but not party political, especially during an election period.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

On the question of unintended consequences, has my hon. Friend had a chance to consider the complexities that the Bill would create for the Conservative party? The fact is that full-time employees are involved in creating donors’ clubs, and money from them goes from one constituency to another, meaning that every single Conservative association will be embroiled in an incredible amount of bureaucracy, with me monitoring every bit of their expenditure.

[Ms Eagle]

They should be afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker—very afraid.

I now want to look at each part of the Bill in turn, beginning with the part on lobbying. The Leader of the House attempted to keep a straight face when he claimed that the proposals will make the lobbying industry more transparent, but I am not sure that even he believes it—almost no one else does. Only this Government could think that the way to clean up lobbying is with a Bill that does not even capture Lynton Crosby. Only this Government could think that the way to clean up lobbying is with a Bill that would allow a lobbyist lobbying an MP about the lobbying Bill to escape the requirement to sign its proposed register.

Three and a half years ago the Prime Minister, when Leader of the Opposition, told us that lobbying was

“the next big scandal waiting to happen”.

He did not tell us then that he was going to do nothing about it for over three years but survive a series of lobbying scandals and then produce a Bill so flawed that it would actually make things worse.

I have two key points to make about the proposals on lobbying set out in part 1. The first relates to the laughably narrow definition of “consultant lobbyist”. Under the Government’s definition, someone will count as a lobbyist only if they lobby directly Ministers or permanent secretaries and if their business is mainly for the purposes of lobbying. It is estimated that that will cover less than one fifth of those people currently working in the £2 billion lobbying industry, and the Association of Professional Political Consultants estimates that only 1% of ministerial meetings organised by lobbyists would be covered. Moreover, it would be extremely easy to rearrange how such lobbying is conducted to evade the need to appear on the new register at all. The Bill is so narrow that it would fail to cover not only the lobbyist currently barnacle-scraping at the heart of No.10, but any of the lobbying scandals that have beset the Prime Minister in this Parliament.

My second point is that there is a real risk that the proposals will make lobbying less transparent than it is now. The Government’s proposed register would cover fewer lobbyists than the existing voluntary register run by the UK Public Affairs Council.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I have some questions for the Minister to answer, if he will. Under the Bill, will paid transport provided by the South Cambridgeshire Conservative association for people to go to the London mayoral election be covered as third-party expenditure? Will the Tatton patrons’ club, as an independent body, be required to declare those who have contributed to its expenditure and where that expenditure has gone? Will that also apply to other patrons’ clubs of other Conservative associations across the country? When money from Tatton, Witney, Surrey Heath and many other patrons’ associations goes via constituency association accounts to other third parties—in other words, to other Tory associations—none of that is now specifically declared. Will the Bill require both sides to declare such activity?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, made a point about the role of MPs as lobbyists. I eventually but successfully took 43 different firms of solicitors through the Law Society for misconduct, but I named a number of them publicly in advance without having had constituents come to me. I suspected that I had constituents who had been wrongly charged by them, but I did not have a mandate from a specific individual constituent. Would that action categorically have been permissible under the Bill? If there is a legal challenge in a comparable situation—that case involved firms of solicitors and there were many that might have done that at the time—will there be indemnity for Parliament and for Members of Parliament? I hope that the Minister who replies will give precise answers to those questions, because I think the House deserves to know.

On the general points, there is nothing in the Bill about the imbalance in party funding. The Conservative party wasted £250,000 trying to get rid of me, which had no impact whatsoever. Nevertheless, the unfairness in the democratic system remains. Do the Liberal Democrats intend to introduce an amendment on that point, so that we can support it if the Bill proceeds to its next stage?

On cash for access, we have seen MPs declaring that they are like taxis and we have also seen the recent scandals. Do the Liberal Democrats intend to introduce specific additional proposals to bring such activity into the scope of the Bill? It is wholly missing at the moment. As other Members have demonstrated, bodies such as BSkyB are excluded. Do the Liberal Democrats intend to introduce a specific clause that would bring the major lobbyists under the remit of the Bill, should it be passed today? Or is this a flawed attempt at gerrymandering, a half-cocked Bill that does not give anything to anyone other than confusion?

Finally, let me answer one point for my colleagues on the Opposition Benches who wanted information about why the Bill might be being introduced. There are figures for the membership of the Conservative party, so let me give a couple of examples. In South Cambridgeshire, membership has gone down by 21 and they are down to just 13 friends this year. In Tatton, membership has gone down by 43 and in Witney, it has gone down by more than 100. Surrey Heath has lost 350 members—a third of its membership—in the past three years. That might show the crisis in the Conservative party and might be why we have this attempt at gerrymandering today.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Lord Mann Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I find it quite extraordinary that Parliament feels it appropriate to debate or comment on people who are appointed to public office without their having some kind of right of reply here. I think that is regrettable. I am certain that the individuals who have been put forward are excellent people who will do an excellent job, in precisely the same way that those who served the public previously did an excellent job in establishing the organisation.

My concern and regret—this is not a criticism of the Leader of the House, who is bound by what Parliament has previously agreed—is that the motion is in front of Parliament at all, and indeed that SCIPSA exists at all. In the three years since IPSA was set up, Parliament has had the opportunity to separate out properly and entirely all matters relating to pay and conditions, rather than have any semblance of control, influence or direction, however distant, over such matters. The fact that the appointments have been made with parliamentary involvement demonstrates that we have not yet gone far enough in isolating pay and expenses entirely from everything else we do. That is the fundamental error that was made before.

I therefore ask the Leader of the House to consider, with the four new board members, establishing a dialogue to determine whether they could bring forward and recommend to us a better system in which we would have no involvement whatever in future appointments, whether ratification or anything else, so that there is a complete separation between Parliament and those who decide our pay and expenses. It seems to me that the public would support that. Equally important, I think that would strengthen our position as legislators. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Mann Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady will know that the reshuffle has delivered some very fast changes. We had announcements last Friday on freeing up the roll-out of superfast broadband from some of the regulations and red tape preventing us from moving forward as fast as we need to. I hope that she will join me in encouraging her constituents and others to support our measures.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

9. How many facilities for heptathletes are planned for construction in the next four years.

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

The honest answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is none, because heptathlons generally take place in athletics stadiums, and the Olympic stadium will remain in use as an athletics venue as part of the sporting legacy of the London games and will host the London 2017 world athletics championships. In addition, Sport England is investing £30 million over the next three years to support new large-scale multi-sport facilities.

[John Mann]

There is one planned. Emily Race is the top 11-year-old heptathlete medal-winning prospect in the country, but she has to practise on a grass football field. If my area can put together two thirds of the money, will the Minister join me in twisting the appropriate arms to ensure that the national sports bodies find the other third, so that her and others’ dreams and ambitions can be realised?

[Hugh Robertson]

Particularly after the feats of Jessica Ennis earlier this summer, I am sure that everybody across the House will join me and the hon. Gentleman in wishing Emily Race all the best. The possibility of doing what he suggests through the Sport England fund is absolutely there, and I encourage him to make a bid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

The previous Minister for heritage, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), did an excellent job of consulting on this issue, and I pay tribute to the hard work that he has done to promote the heritage sector over the past two years. The consultation has now closed and we will consider the responses. The sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) are well made.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T8. The Football Association taskforce that I recently chaired highlighted a huge variation in the quality of stewarding at professional football matches. Will the Sports Minister pursue that issue with the football authorities, given the dangers inherent in that situation?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes.

Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

It appears that this Commission, which was originally described as a very narrow one, is broadening so that, as the Leader of the House said, it can now look at particular matters with sub-committees of one, and there are suggestions that it should broaden into criminal prosecutions.

The issues remain as they were, but the evidence is changing and will continue to change. That is the problem with setting up ad hoc committees. Just in the past hour, further e-mails have come from the Bank of England that have some significance for matters that have already been looked at, looked at again and looked at a third time. Those e-mails are significant to what the Treasury Committee looked at the first time, and doubtless information will continue to emerge.

This is a moving feast, and the problem with a moving feast is that setting a time limit when one does not know what will happen next can lead to a certain momentum, which can be in the wrong direction. The problem is not that it is an arbitrary time limit—any time limit is arbitrary—but that it could be an irrational one.

Tomorrow in the United States, a new court action is being initiated not on LIBOR but on other market manipulation by banks, and specifically a British bank. We will see what happens as that court action proceeds, but simply examining LIBOR, and especially only the one bank in which what has gone on has been partially exposed, rather misses the point about market manipulation by investment banks over the past 10 years.

Even within the context of LIBOR, we have only just reached the stage of seeing some of the market manipulation that happened, and only in one bank, Barclays, which has received bad publicity. There is far more to be revealed about that, and I am certain that there will be more surprises to come in the next day, week or two weeks. Those surprises may well continue to flow.

Even in the case of Barclays, the manipulation of LIBOR is one tiny part of the allegations of market manipulation and anti-competitive work. A swathe of evidence is beginning to emerge, and more people are now prepared to speak out about how a range of markets have been manipulated in a range of ways. Derivatives have been used as the basis of that manipulation, but in fact it is much more complex than that. At its heart, as Barclays has said, was the making of a quick profit. In the past two weeks, courts in Canada have specified in a non-LIBOR-related case where the judge has pronounced that it was manipulation for short-term profit on an anti-competitive basis.

That is just one bank. No one can answer—the question was not answered by the Financial Services Authority today; perhaps it is not in its remit to do so—what the contingent liability is for Barclays. That is a small concern, and of significance to people working for the bank, people who have shares in it, and the wider economy, but it is clear that the largely state-owned banks, not least the Royal Bank of Scotland but also Lloyds TSB, have been doing the same thing. The problem that we will face is not just the issues of criminality that may or may not emerge. Proving a criminal case in any of that is fiendishly difficult—both finding the person who has committed an act and finding a victim so that a case can be taken. If law suits, beginning in the United States but spreading elsewhere, start to succeed, the amounts of money that have been fiddled are so great—because of the instruments that were used—that the British taxpayer may face a huge, unquantified bill, and we do not know when it will arrive. The future of Barclays is somewhat in question.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is indulging in scene setting—offering the House the context—but I would politely suggest that he will wish to turn to the proceedings and composition of the intended Committee. If it is helpful to him, I gently remind him, in relation to the motion, that he has 15 paragraphs from which to choose when deciding how to focus his remarks.

[John Mann]

I thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker. My initial remarks related to the remit of the Committee, rather than its composition, which is frankly an irrelevance compared with the problems of the moving feast of its remit.

The remit has been set so vaguely that it can incorporate anything and everything. We will face the economic consequences when the partially state-owned banks are hit in the same way. These issues are entirely out of our control—indeed, they are entirely out of British control. The American authorities are two years ahead of the British authorities, and have taken a lead, so they will dictate the time scale for what comes next. Whether the considerations are legal or political—there are elections coming up, so there may well be more of a political imperative to be seen to be doing things—they will have grave consequences for these financial institutions and the British taxpayer.

That is why although it may well come up with worthy and credible recommendations, the investigation cannot match the task that it has been set. Because of the course of events and the changes that will happen, arbitrary time limits are, by definition, self-defeating. There is another problem that goes alongside that, and it concerns the other options available to look at those matters. I am pleased that the Leader of the House appears to have given a commitment, and I urge him to clarify it, that no staffing resource will be removed from the Treasury Committee in that period of time. If that is the case, that is a significant step forward. If the Treasury Committee were mothballed at precisely this time, the ability of the House to respond to fast-moving events would worsen significantly.

The Treasury Committee has a heavy workload. Today, Commissioner Barnier was supposed to appear before the Committee in relation to the 17 EU directives and draft directives relating to financial services on the books at the moment. It is essential that this House properly scrutinises and takes a view on what happens with those directives, but that has not been happening—it is a key role that the Treasury Committee needs to fulfil.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there may well be some dispute about what the Treasury Committee should look at and what this new Commission should look at—if, for example, another scandal or something like it emerged in the next few weeks?

[John Mann]

My hon. Friend makes the point that I have been stressing—that we do not know and cannot predict them, but we know that there will be a lot more scandals emerging, as we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg at present. [Interruption.] I appreciate that this is not good listening for those hon. Members trying to work out how to respond to this, but if this House is to set up arbitrary ad hoc committees at random every time there is a problem, it will potentially undermine itself. Which Select Committee will be next to give away some of its powers to an ad hoc committee? Is this the appropriate way to determine such matters?

If some of the powers set out in the motion were reinforced not just in respect of the Treasury Select Committee but of other Select Committees, that would reinforce the scrutiny of this House over what goes on both in government and in the country, so there are some good proposals here. The good proposals, however, are bespoke to this particular Commission—for example, the ability to call in a QC and the ability to take evidence on oath. If they are good enough for this new Commission, they should be made available to any Select Committee looking at any issue. The House is ducking this problem.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I think the hon. Gentleman is making some powerful and important points. Does he share my surprise that the Treasury Select Committee was not given this role? He is absolutely right: these powers should be given to all Select Committees to make Parliament more powerful.

[John Mann]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and I agree with him, but I do not intend to go through all the previous debate on this issue—interesting though it would be to do so—because I am sticking to the detail of what is in front of us, however badly worded it is. There is, however, clearly a case for saying that if the Treasury Committee had been allowed to carry on this work, it could have done so as effectively as this Joint Committee. I am sure that the five Members from the House of Lords who are as yet unknown and unnamed will bring great wisdom to this Joint Committee, but if the House of Lords wants to look into matters, it can look into them. This is the elected Chamber, and for this elected Chamber to hand over some of these powers of scrutiny to an unelected Chamber seems a retrograde step, which will come back to haunt us in future.

Once a precedent has been established and it suits the Government, it is likely to happen again—and this was a Government initiative. I am rather surprised that the Opposition Front-Bench team, perhaps looking forward to being in government themselves, have been seduced into accepting this way of undermining the historic, developed and improving role of this House to scrutinise. That, I think, is partly what is at stake here, if this becomes the way of doing business in this House.

I do not see how a Select Committee, denuded of half its members, can in any way work as effectively as a Select Committee operating with all its members. That is the reality of what will happen, and we need to be aware of the unintended consequences that might come from a potential eurozone crisis and other problems emanating from Europe that conflict across the work of this Joint Committee—and are wrongly not referred to within it—because proposals from Brussels are, rightly or wrongly, a fundamental part of the equation, affecting decisions made by this House and by the banking industry in this country and across the world. That aspect has been ducked by the creation of the Commission, which will create unhealthy confusion in the debate.

What should have happened? The remit given to the investigation, which should have been carried out by the Treasury Committee, should have been far broader—[Interruption.] An hon. Gentleman says “Boring” from a sedentary position, but this is not boring. For example, seven investment banks colluded to rig the price of the Kraft takeover of Cadbury’s. That is the real scandal that underpins the profits in investment banking. In some areas, there is ferocious competition, but in the vast majority of investment banking, there is no competition whatever. That is the scandal that created the culture that led to the LIBOR rigging. An investment bank called in by a company to advise on a sale or takeover has so much knowledge of the workings of the company that it has the ability to manipulate the market to determine how things will go. That is the fundamental weakness in the system of investment banking. The implications for British manufacturing and manufacturing elsewhere in the world—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have noted the hon. Gentleman’s references to investment banking, but I fear—very considerably—that he is now going to proceed to discuss the state of British manufacturing and any relationship between the banking and manufacturing sectors. He is gyrating between referring to the terms of reference of the Commission and matters of composition, and then talking about matters that are quite outwith the terms of the motion, which ought to afford him adequate scope. I feel cautiously hopeful that he may be nearer to the end of his remarks than to the beginning.

[John Mann]

I have so far got to paragraph (1)(b) of the motion, which I shall quote, so that you are assured, Mr Speaker, that my remarks are directly pertinent. Paragraph (1)(b) refers to

“lessons to be learned about corporate governance, transparency and conflicts of interest, and their implications for regulation and for Government policy”.

That is precisely what I was talking about in relation to how investment banks operate. The lack of transparency, conflicts of interests and the narrow remit—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is public spirited and trying to be helpful, but he should not misunderstand the terms of the motion. The paragraph to which he refers underlines the importance of the inquiry in learning those lessons. It is not necessary or feasible for the House to do so tonight. It would be a triumph of optimism over reality for him to suppose that the House would do so courtesy of his speech, no matter how compelling it is.

[John Mann]

Thank you for that guidance, Mr Speaker. I am merely outlining my objections to the lack of breadth in the remit given to the Commission.

My final questions on paragraph (1)(b)—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I am surprised hon. Members are so keen to stay and hear the debate, given some of their sedentary comments. It would be helpful if the Leader of the House confirmed unambiguously that the principles behind the setting up of the Commission will in no way—practically and in reality—undermine the ability of the Treasury Committee to meet as often as it has over the past year to discuss subjects that it chooses to investigate. It would help if he confirmed that it can call the witnesses it chooses and that it will have the access to the staffing resource and expertise that it currently has. If he can give those assurances, I will not seek to divide the House on the motion. I look forward to hearing from him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Mann Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I am not aware that we have had discussions with News Corporation, but I will certainly look at the Department’s records. Local television is certainly an opportunity for local media, and—[Interruption.] I will write to the hon. Lady about this; I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for that lesson in etiquette, which I shall take on board. Many local newspaper groups are interested in local television, and I think this is a potential opportunity for local newspapers.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

5. What arrangements he has put in place to recruit a new special adviser.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

I recently appointed Guy Levin as my new special adviser, and he started this week.

[John Mann]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Government special advisers are meeting as a group on a fairly regular basis, doubtless to get their instructions from 10 Downing street. Will the Secretary of State ensure that he receives a written report on those meetings, and that such reports are made public so that we can all see precisely what instructions 10 Downing street is giving to his and other special advisers?

[Mr Hunt]

We will be at least as transparent as the last Government on these matters, if not more so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. This was never intended to be simply a cut-out-and-send-back element in a tabloid newspaper’s campaign, but there is no evidence that all e-petitions are of that type: in many cases, they constitute a genuine expression of public sentiment on a subject. Besides, we have the filter of the Backbench Business Committee, which considers whether the House has already debated the issue in question, or will have an opportunity to do so in the near future. When the Committee considers it right for a debate to take place, it will stage one, and I think that it is doing a very good job in that regard. However, we are constantly evaluating what has happened, and we are keen to learn from the experience in order to make the arrangement even better.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

4. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on scheduling of business to achieve the Government's legislative programme.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House regularly meets colleagues in Government to discuss the legislative programme in order to ensure that Parliament has an opportunity to debate Government legislation fully.

[John Mann]

There is no problem with debating Government legislation fully, because the Government have hardly any legislation to introduce in this increasingly part-time Parliament. Given that they have no ideas to present, will the Leader of the House make better provision for Back Benchers, including me, who have a whole raft of Bills to introduce which the public would like to see implemented? Will he give us time in which to introduce them, or not?

[Mr Heath]

We are seeing an interesting juxtaposition. Our Department is so often criticised for providing insufficient time for Members to consider legislation properly, and now the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is too much time for them to do so. I remind him that, only a few weeks after the Queen’s Speech, 11 Bills are already before Parliament. I entirely reject his criticism that there is any deficit in terms of the legislation that is before the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Mann Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

The distribution of, broadly, the broadcast moneys that go into the premier league and football league is, of course, a matter for those leagues. However, we expect the governance of football to allow for a proper distribution of those moneys. I think everybody across the House is agreed that there is a considerable distance to go before that is achieved, but I hope that it will be as part of this process.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

4. What recent discussions he has had with the Football Association on football governance.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

The Secretary of State and I continue to meet the Football Association, the Premier League and the Football League collectively to hear their progress on the reforms that the Government have called for in their response to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport’s football governance inquiry. The football authorities have until the end of February to come forward with their proposals.

[John Mann]

The Football Association is significantly more enlightened than either UEFA or FIFA when it comes to tackling racism in football. Would the Minister be prepared to meet the all-party group on anti-Semitism and community groups such as Community Security Trust, the Holocaust Educational Trust and Searchlight to listen to our concerns about what more the Government, the FA and UEFA can do to tackle the potential for racism at the Euro 2012 championship?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

3. How many hours of business he plans to allocate to (a) general debates on subjects determined by the Government and (b) Back-Bench or private Members’ business in January and February 2012.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will announce the business for January and February 2012 in the usual way, during business questions on a Thursday.

[John Mann]

It is obvious to all of us that this coalition has run out of steam when it comes to legislation and everything else. Given that many Back Benchers on both sides of the House have good and sensible proposals for legislation, why does the Leader of the House, instead of bed blocking debating time, not give us the opportunity in January and February to bring forward that legislation?

[Mr Heath]

What a load of nonsense. I am afraid that I do not agree. Over the past two weeks, the House has had the opportunity to debate important and topical issues, including the economy, Europe and immigration. This afternoon, thanks to the Government’s establishment of the Backbench Business Committee, the House will debate financial education in schools, an issue that has received more than 100,000 signatures on the Government’s e-petition website. I believe that this Government have placed Parliament back at the centre of our national life.

Draft Financial Services Bill (Joint Committee)

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. That allows me to pose a question to the Leader of the House. My understanding of the Order Paper is that the debate may continue beyond 10 pm. I am not sure of the mechanism that would be adopted, but my understanding is that the Government would like the debate to have the opportunity, if necessary, to continue beyond 10 pm. If that has been withdrawn, I would be grateful for clarification from the Chair.

The Leader of the House said in his brief yet succinct remarks that if we were to change the balance of the Committee, that would give the Opposition parties control of the Committee. I did not have the benefits of the wonderful education of many Members on the Government Benches because I grew up under the previous Conservative Government, but by my maths there would still be three members of the Conservative party and two members of the Opposition on the Committee. The Government would still have a majority. They are perfectly entitled to nominate a new member, if they choose to do so, and we would support a suitable candidate. Perhaps in his rush to get his suntan creams and holiday brochures out, the Leader of the House had not quite checked the membership of the Committee.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend like to take the opportunity to correct the record and the rather uncharitable statement made by the Leader of the House that those supporting the amendment are in some way attempting to undermine pre-legislative scrutiny? Does my hon. Friend agree that if there had been pre-legislative scrutiny at a much earlier stage in previous Parliaments, some of the issues in the financial sector may not have been as profound as they have been?

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is correct. I am baffled—I would happily take clarification from the Leader of the House or the Deputy Leader of the House—as to how removing one member of the Committee is tantamount to seeking to thwart the business of the House. My understanding—I am sure the Deputy Speaker would correct me if I was wrong—is that the Committee would still be quorate and would still be competent.

I look at the names of some members of the Committee and see good, learned and wise individuals from both sides of the House. At least one member, the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), is present in the Chamber to hear the discussion. The Committee consists of a competent set of Members from both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) is a long-standing member of the Treasury Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I always have great respect for your counsel, Mr Speaker, and obviously do not seek a time when you might perhaps be advising other Parliaments in other parts of the country, or other parts of the world. [Interruption.]

[John Mann]

If I could hear myself speak, I would ask my hon. Friend whether he would care to comment on the fact that the constituency of Yeovil is an English constituency, whether he has considered the make-up of the Committee that is proposed, whether he perceives that it will in fact be an English Committee, rather than a United Kingdom one, and what the potential consequences might be, not least for his constituents, of that happening in such a biased way.

[Thomas Docherty]

I obviously look forward to my hon. Friend’s contribution in due course.

I must say that I thought the cracks about monkeys and organ grinders that the hon. Member for Devizes made did nothing to raise the standard of the debate, but as she used to work for the Chancellor of the Exchequer I expected nothing more, because her speeches were never that good when she worked for him. It is important that we look at whether the people who are being put forward in general are of a correct measure. The hon. Member for Warrington South, who I think is now detained elsewhere, asked about the qualifications needed for serving on the Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and I are equally concerned about what qualifications should or may bar an individual Member from serving on the Committee. Having read from cover to cover the Standards and Privileges Committee report, and having read the introduction to the draft Bill prepared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his team about the need for financial probity and for a new set of regulations, I have severe doubts about whether one member of the Committee is adequately suited to the task.

In a week when Parliament has had to deal with some very severe accusations levelled against members of the Government and against members of Her Majesty’s police forces, when we have seen former special advisers being placed under arrest, and when Government Members simply argue, as I have heard them do today, that we will take people on the basis of the assurances they have given although they are under active police investigation, the public will look at this Committee and say that it beggars belief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful for that question. Obviously, I will not have the last word. Indeed, I imagine that you, will have the last word Mr Speaker when you read out the result of the Division that may occur later. Having taken advice from senior officers in the House, it is my understanding, although I have not checked the latest edition of “Erskine May”—the 24th edition, which was edited by the Clerk of the House, is out now and is a snip at £295—that Labour Members would not be allowed to put forward the name of a Liberal Democrat Member without their express consent. I fully understand why a Liberal Democrat Member would not seek publicly to undermine their parliamentary colleague and I respect that. It would be for the Government Whips to approach Liberal Democrat Members.

[John Mann]

My hon. Friend is getting to the nub of one of the key issues. Is not the dilemma that, when wishing to amend the membership of a Standing Committee or any other Committee of the House, the modernisation of this place has not gone far enough for anything other than the usual channels to determine such things? It is only in the last year that Chairs of Select Committees have been elected by the House. Modernisation has only gone so far. In raising such matters in the House, we are rather trapped in the antiquated systems of how we can object.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. He will know that I am a member of the Procedure Committee, which is the successor to the Modernisation Committee. I have the privilege to serve with a number of the members of that Committee. He is right to say that this is something that I take a particularly keen—[Interruption.] I will give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

It is with pleasure that I address such a packed House. Having sat through and participated in a significant number of debates since the general election, I cannot recall on any occasion, even when there have been debates on so-called fundamental reform of the constitution by the Deputy Prime Minister, seeing so many Liberal Democrats present. I heard someone say from a sedentary position that this was Parliament at its worst, but it is a good sign of democracy for this type of debate to have so many active would-be participants. I welcome the Liberal Democrats into the House in such large numbers, and it is good to see that their coalition partners wish to see some balance and to be informed by the debate.

I hope that we can have the full, thorough and proper debate that the House has lacked in relation to the establishment of such Committees, which are a new venture for the House. They should generally be welcomed, but the Leader of the House and his shadow exemplified the bind that we are in, as democratic politicians in this House, when we attempt to amend anything in any way that has not gone through the “usual channels”.

[Thomas Docherty]

I did not get a chance to notice this while I was speaking—following the rules, I was looking at you, Mr Speaker—but has my hon. Friend noticed that one of the chief cheerleaders tonight is a Liberal Democrat Whip?

[John Mann]

We take the view that all Members of the House are equal, which is an important principle, so the ability to participate and influence should be equal. It is ironic, therefore, that when it comes to the selection of Committee members some are more equal than others. It seems to me that as we have started a modernisation process that is very slowly beginning to trickle through the House, after many years of waiting, that issue needs proper attention.

It is rather a shame that someone needs to table an amendment even to get the issue on to the Floor of the House. The Government were not going to allocate any time to debating this important Committee, its make-up, whether we should have it at all, the timetable allocated to it, the role of the House of Lords within it, whether the Lords should have a role in financial matters, or the issue of England versus the rest when it comes to the membership of the Committee. None of that could have been debated had not my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and myself chosen to learn the rules and object at 10 o’clock on a number of occasions over the past week, and then to table an amendment. By its nature, that amendment has forced the Government to create time for this debate.

It is a little odd that the Government are seeking to have unlimited time for this debate, which can continue till any hour, when we have just debated major energy statements—a fundamental issue for each and every hon. Member and our constituents—with speech limits of five minutes per Member. That seems to me a poor allocation of time, but it is another example of the impotence of the Back Bencher in attempting to influence what goes on in here.

I do not court favour, and I never have, with any side of the House. Indeed, on some issues, on some occasions, I have been in a vocal but rather small all-party minority. When the expenses issue was first emerging, and this House was refusing to deal with it and was still not totally on top of it, the usual channels—or what I termed the “gentleman’s club”—were a hindrance to democracy and to our relationship with our voters.

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be taking a very high moral tone, but as a person who has been serially rebuked by the Standards and Privileges Committee, is he therefore ruling himself out of any future Committee membership?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann]

Mr Speaker, I do think that it would be appropriate to respond directly to the inaccuracies in the comments just made. However, there is an important point—

[Claire Perry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Mann]

I shall give way in a minute.

There is an important point about who should be a Back Bencher and who should remain a Back Bencher, because within the House, some will always be fated to be Back Benchers, often at the behest of their party leader. In power, party leaders love to exercise the power to choose who will be in ministerial positions or sit on Committees and the rest. However, on occasion there is perhaps a democratic requirement that some people should choose to be Back Benchers, or be chosen to be Back Benchers, for the length of a Parliament. It can be quite cathartic, as a politician, to spend one’s time—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is not the occasion for the hon. Gentleman either to dilate or to rhapsodise about the merits of Back-Bench life. Anybody would think that he was seeking to imitate his hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), and to pen a book entitled, “How to be a Backbencher”. He is welcome to do that, but if he wishes to do so, he must do so outside the Chamber.

[John Mann]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for redirecting me following my aberration after that intervention.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) accused my hon. Friend of taking a high moral tone, but does he agree that surely a high moral tone is to be preferred to a low moral tone?

[John Mann]

I am attempting simply to put across a few views that I believe would appropriately reflect the views of my constituents. I am putting no tone—high, low or otherwise—into this debate.

Members are elected to come and put forward in this House what we think appropriate. One thing that my constituents, and therefore I, would not regard as appropriate, and that the House overall should not regard as appropriate, is having a Joint Committee made up exclusively of English members. A Joint Committee on the draft Financial Services Bill that reflects this House, in the way that Select Committees do, ought to be more reflective of the entirety of the UK, and not just of England. I say that with some irony, because I am one of those who has argued that the English voice has been understated in this House.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many financial services jobs are based in Edinburgh?

[John Mann]

Our colleagues from every corner of Scotland, not just Edinburgh, are always rightly happy to demonstrate the importance of financial services—

[Thomas Docherty]

It may assist my hon. Friend to learn that I have more than 2,000 people working in the banking industry in my constituency, not to mention the thousands who make the lovely commute every morning over the bridges to Edinburgh.

[John Mann]

I put it to my hon. Friend that it would be an own goal by this Parliament, not least considering the job losses in the Royal Bank of Scotland and other institutions in Scotland and elsewhere, to go ahead with this Committee with only English members. One of the niceties—

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is obviously concerned by the lack of members from Scotland. There are two Labour members on the Committee, so perhaps one of them could be replaced by a member from Scotland. That would resolve the problem without bothering about any other party.

[John Mann]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. There are other reasons why, when considering altering the balance of the Committee to represent the balance in Parliament more appropriately, we picked a Liberal Democrat to remove, not a replacement from my party. No replacement will be required if this resolution is passed, as I hope it will be. One of the consequences would be that the Government could rethink the membership of the Committee. The question of how many members, and the balance from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England—

[Thomas Docherty]

And the gender balance.

[John Mann]

I was just about to come to that point.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[John Mann]

I have only just begun on it, but I will give way.

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman started his very long speech by saying that all Members were equal, but all his points so far contradict that principle. Can he not just end it?

[John Mann]

The hon. Gentleman is rather intemperate. Here we are having a good and important debate, and I anticipated an informed intervention from him. Instead, he merely wishes to curtail debate on equality. That says something about these new Conservatives, the partners of the Liberal Democrats—

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I am all in favour of gender balance on Committees, but the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Treasury Committee, which has only one lady member. I do not recall him ever making the point that he or his Labour colleagues—all of whom are men, of course—should be replaced by women.

[John Mann]

The hon. Gentleman is not an hon. Friend of mine—to use the parliamentary language—so he is not privy to the debates and discussions in the parliamentary Labour party. However, I assure him, and the House, that this is an issue that I have raised. It is one of the traps that the House has set for itself, in the same way as it has with this motion. How do we achieve gender balance? I intend to make some suggestions about what we can do if the amendment is passed, and why that is so important.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that his party has just had the opportunity to appoint a new member to the Treasury Committee, but it did not take the opportunity to appoint a woman. We were joined by another Labour man for the first time today. The hon. Gentleman claims to be concerned about gender balance, but this rather spiteful amendment would have been better if it had proposed such a balance, rather than being a veiled attack on one hon. Member.

[John Mann]

There is nothing veiled or spiteful about it. I think that the hon. Lady should withdraw her allegation. As she should know, being a woman on the Treasury Committee, the power is not there—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

It is not, but I strongly deprecate the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has been around for longer than he ought to have been. [Interruption.] I am not wishing his untimely end, notwithstanding the sedentary dissent of the Patronage Secretary.

[John Mann]

As I was saying, equality is a fundamental issue in respect of Treasury matters. The make-up of this Committee reinforces and exemplifies an historical bias on equality that is a significant bar to effective decision making cross-party and over many generations. One only needs to look at the fact that Chancellors of the Exchequer have been male throughout the centuries. Therefore, in the modern era when all parties rightly, and with increasing success, are bringing women forward into Parliament, this Committee’s membership demonstrates an old-fashionedness and backdatedness that this House should not endorse tonight.

This gets to the nub of the gentleman’s club and the way in which decisions are being made and have been made. I suspect that no such discussions on equality took place as the names were put forward, and that, in fact, the different parties put forward their names in accordance with the usual time-honoured, historical tradition, and nobody then took an overview. I suspect that the bias against Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland came about in exactly the same way.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Based on this argument, I am surprised that two male Members have tabled this amendment. Surely 50% of them should have been female, but I do not think that that is the case.

[John Mann]

It is good that serious interventions are being made. On Treasury matters, there is a historical bias going back over the centuries, but this Parliament has not got to grips with it. We made exactly the same mistakes when establishing the Select Committees. The usual channels have brought forward names and those names are not reflective of the House or the country. That is a fundamental weakness.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman be moving on to the next point, which is the disproportionate number of people called David on this Committee?

[John Mann]

I will not be making frivolous points about the forename or surname of any of the Members put forward for this Committee. However, the question of gender balance is not going to be knocked off the agenda so easily, because it is fundamental to the whole workings of Parliament. If Parliament in the modern era is portraying itself through one of the very first Joint Scrutiny Committees to be established and the elected House of Commons manages to get itself in a bind whereby all the Members put forward are English males, we are letting the country down. We are also letting down the principle of modernisation, which, superficially at least, is shared by those on both sides of the House. If we are really trying to encourage a wider array of people to take an interest in this House and, in future years, to stand for this House, how we portray ourselves in the Committees that we create is a fundamental principle.

I put it to the House: in what other way can the House manifest its commitment to an inclusive Parliament—a Parliament that is representative of all parts of the country, of all sections of the country and of both sides of the gender division within the country? There is a fundamental point at issue, which the Government, in failing to give proper time to have this proposal debated, are shying away from. That is a weakness at the heart of government.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling argument. Has he considered the idea that in the future it might be helpful if a statement were attached to each name, spelling out what the usual channels felt were the Member’s qualifications for this Committee or for the Select Committees?

[John Mann]

No, I disagree with my hon. Friend. Others were arguing in interventions—they are welcome to make the point at greater length in debate if they wish—that this Committee should be based on experts, but that is a fundamental flaw of logic. The idea that it has to be bankers and specialist economists who investigate, make decisions on our behalf and carry out pre-legislative scrutiny and that the basis of these bodies should be some academic prowess or past profession is part of the old school and the gentlemen’s club. There is no reason why those from manual working backgrounds or care backgrounds should not also be able to participate in making such decisions as effectively as anyone else as members of these Committees.

When the world looks in, and, in particular, when our constituents look in, and we examine how far we have modernised or not modernised, as exemplified by the failure in the make-up of this Committee, we find, at the very end of the first year of this two-year Parliament and as we go into the summer recess, that the problem is magnified. We are talking about one of the last decisions made by Parliament before the recess. It is a recess that some believe is too long—I tend to share that view—but through which this Joint Committee will apparently be working. If that is the signal we send out to the country of how we see the modern world and financial services and how we intend to influence such services, it undermines our ability to do the kind of things we want to, although we disagree on the precise remedies. Removing such influence from ourselves and weakening ourselves by having such an unrepresentative Committee is a fundamentally flawed policy, but other weaknesses in the make-up of the Committee must be explored.

One such weakness is the fact that the balance between Government and Opposition does not reflect the balance in Parliament. That seems to me to be fundamentally wrong. There may or may not be a desire to have votes in the Committee, but, as regards the contribution, input and perspectives raised when four of the members come from the Government side and two from the combined Opposition side, that distribution does not seem to be democratic or appropriate. It does not reflect the election results.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Unless the number of members is increased, changing the balance by one person from 4:2 to 3:3 brings equality, which does not reflect the present situation in the House of Commons, does it?

[John Mann]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but there is no suggestion of any name being added—certainly not from me. The suggestion is merely to remove one name to create a better balance of 3:2. Of course, one never could and never should attempt to use an entirely mathematical equation to resolve such matters, but the principle that the balance in Committees should reflect the balance in the elected House is surely one this House would have to abide by. The hon. Gentleman is right; there could have been other ways of doing this, such as adding another member, but it seems to me that adding another member, perhaps from one of the smaller parties, would be rather a hostage to fortune, because we must ask which Member it would be and from which party. Back Benchers could not simply be nominated at random without some process to enable consultation—the very consultation that the Government failed properly to carry out for this Committee. We all know why the make-up of the Committee is as it is and what the Government’s agenda is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

That is inconsistent.

[John Mann]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman, from a sedentary position, says that that is inconsistent, but there is no requirement for those proposing an amendment to agree on every remedy that would emanate from it.

My purpose is not to make any comment on individual Members but to ensure that because there is a balance between the other place and this place the Government take the issue back and rethink the entire make-up of the Committee in order properly to reflect the Parliament that we have, the elections we have had and the modern world we live in. I seek no more than that, but of course my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, who has added his name to the amendment, may have other, additional and different reasons. That does not negate the argument; indeed, one could argue that in a democracy it strengthens the case because there are different arguments from different perspectives with different options provided. The principle remains the same, however: it is invidious to have a balance of 4:2, four from the Government side and two from all the combined Opposition parties. However one looks at it, that in no way reflects the result of the last election.

It seems to me rather demeaning for this Parliament to go into such a long summer recess with this Committee apparently sitting through it with such imbalance and such bias. This question of priority and of why the Committee is sitting through the summer is another reason why the amendment has been tabled. If the amendment was passed, one would hope that the Government would be forced to rethink at this late stage. They chose not to table the debate earlier, although they had the opportunity to do so, but one would hope that the time for reflection they would have over the recess would also mean that the proposal for this biased and unrepresentative group, in relation to the general election, to Parliament as a whole, to the nations of the United Kingdom, to the gender balance in the House, to democracy and to the world in which we live, could not happen. It seems to me a wrong priority in the month of August, when there are many important things that we could be deliberating and engaging on, for this Joint Committee to be establishing its work. A slight delay allowing the Government to rethink, reformulate and re-democratise the proposal would be wholly in order. I am sure that in their heart of hearts that is exactly what hon. Members are thinking tonight, having heard the arguments that have been put forward. No hon. Member would want to go into this long recess having taken a decision so unrepresentative of our country, our Parliament and the world in which we live.

There is another fundamental issue at stake that has not yet been addressed, which the amendment would also allow reconsideration of—the giving away of financial control and powers to the other place. Important debates and deliberations on the future of the other place are currently going on, such as whether it should be partially elected—80% elected—how many should sit in it, where they should come from and what the time scale for reform should be. Those are all important issues, not least to parliamentarians in this House. Pre-empting that by giving financial powers to the other place—as the proposal is, in essence, a move towards doing—by having it scrutinise the draft Financial Services Bill jointly with this House is a start on a slippery slope in relation to the historical division on financial matters that has existed ever since democracy in this place was established. The proposal begins to unravel that and one might think that there are some within the coalition whose very agenda that is—those who want a proportionally elected second Chamber that has those financial powers. It seems to me that they have managed to sneak in, through this proposal at this late hour and this late stage—indeed, it would have been without this debate had we not tabled this amendment—potentially a constitutional issue of profound ramifications. It would mean handing over, albeit the very first semblance of doing so, financial powers, decision-making powers and authority to a second Chamber that some want to become an elected Chamber in the very near future.

There will be different views about that and I do not intend to go into what those views are—that is for another day—but it is relevant to the amendment to point out the consequences. Hon. Members who vote through this unwise, undemocratic, unegalitarian, anti-regions, anti-nations, badly thought-out, badly timetabled, rushed and last-minute proposal will be opening this House to potential ridicule from future generations who come here. They will ask when was the moment when we handed over to the other place that first little bit of power in relation to financial matters. When did we allow the second Chamber—

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I put it to you that the question of the allocation of powers to the other place is completely outside the scope of the motion?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I was listening intently and I was about to say, which I shall now do, that we are concerning ourselves in this debate with the establishment, composition and remit of the draft Financial Services Bill Joint Committee, upon which subject the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is tabling and, I think, speaking to an amendment relating to a narrow part of the matter—namely, a particular member of the Committee. A wider dilation about possible future transfers of power, which might haunt the hon. Gentleman, are not subject matter for this evening’s debate, to which I know he will now return.

[John Mann]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your advice. I seek your clarification on one important matter. It was my intention, as demonstrated by my previous remarks, to confine myself to one contribution, looking at the substantive motion as well as the amendment. I may be in error in so doing and may require a second speech. It was my intention to restrict myself to a single speech, and I seek your guidance in relation to that.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman should proceed with his speech according to his own lights. It is not the normal practice of the Chair to conduct a running commentary on the speech of any hon. Member or to advise an hon. Member in advance of when he might inadvertently be about to slip beyond order. The hon. Gentleman can protect himself.

[John Mann]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that helpful guidance.

The final point that I wish to make in relation to the amendment is that the randomness of selection of an individual member to remove can have many motives and be for many reasons. This important proposal by the Government is fundamentally flawed in its make-up, as I have outlined, being English only and male only, with the Committee meeting as a priority during the summer and being a Joint Committee with the House of Lords.

The weakness of the usual channels, inspired by Government and the Government’s timetabling, has meant that we have not been able to have this debate without amendment. I therefore urge that in future when such matters are before the House, they should not be tabled to be nodded through at 10 pm with no debate or require objections from individual Members or groups of Members in order to stop that process, requiring an amendment to allow a debate both on the amendment and on the issues underlying the make-up of the Committee and the flawed and biased decision of Government in that regard. That is the Government’s responsibility. We as a House have a responsibility to hold the Government to account and to ensure that they do not get away with such sloppiness in their programming of legislation that they put legislation—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am rather disappointed that my hon. Friend seems to be coming to the end of his speech, which I am enjoying so much. Does he agree that there are far too many tight programme motions in the Chamber and that we should have more thorough debates to make sure that every point can be thoroughly discussed, as my hon. Friend is doing?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is a most interesting intervention, but sadly it has absolutely nothing to do with the establishment, composition or remit of the Joint Committee on the Draft Financial Services Bill.

[John Mann]

I shall therefore humbly ignore my hon. Friend’s intervention and conclude my remarks. As guardians of our democracy, albeit within the confines of the gentlemen’s club and the usual channels, and despite the weaknesses imposed upon us by the lack of modernisation, it is our responsibility and duty to expose flawed proposals, such as how the Government have unnaturally put together this unrepresentative and biased group without allowing us a debate that is timetabled in a proper and normal way. It is the Government’s responsibility to get that right, and I implore them to do so in future to save us having to object repeatedly at 10 o’clock at night to the flawed logic and bad politics that they have had to use—we all appreciate that it is a difficult time for the coalition—in order to try to hold these two ramshackle coalition partners together.