London Attack

Mark Field Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is of course right that, as others have said, we should ensure that our values of democracy, tolerance and freedom prevail. It is exactly those values that the terrorists are trying to attack. It is our very way of life that they wish to destroy, and that is why it is so important that, out there, those millions of citizens are going about their lives, as they would do normally, showing, in the very smallest of ways, but each and every one of them, a defiance of the terrorists.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Although yesterday’s dreadful events took place within the boundaries of my constituency, I know that the Palace of Westminster is close to the hearts of not just the 650 of us but of many millions of our fellow countrymen and, indeed, people who live abroad. I thank the Prime Minister for speaking so very eloquently for the nation, both on the steps of Downing Street yesterday evening and in the House today. She reminds us all that the greatest tribute that we, collectively, can pay to those so tragically murdered is to ensure that we go about our business as normally as possible and maintain the values and liberties that our forefathers fought so hard to win on our behalf.

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is so important that we continue to show not just that we value those freedoms and liberties, but that we espouse and, in every action, embody them, because it is those that the terrorists wish to attack. Those freedoms and liberties were hard fought, and there are parts of this Palace where in the past there have been many arguments about them. We must ensure that they remain, and that we show, in our actions, in our deeds and in our words, that they remain at the heart of our democracy.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It has been apparent throughout the proceedings on the Housing and Planning Bill that there is a black hole in the plans to fund the whole proposal.

There are currently 2 million people on waiting lists due to the dearth of homes on affordable rents for low earners. Our new clause 2, which protects housing associations from being compelled to sell off homes, would prevent the further reduction in the supply of affordable social housing. Too often, history has shown that right-to-buy homes are resold. Many homes are rapidly rented out by private landlords at the full market rent, which serves to drive up market prices and increase poverty through higher housing costs, as well as reducing the housing stock available on affordable rents. All of that goes against the charitable objectives of most housing associations.

In summary, we are concerned that the Government want to interfere with the duties of charity trustees to put their beneficiaries first and to comply with their fundamental charitable purposes in how they manage their assets. Housing associations can already partake of right-to-buy options for their tenants where that accords with their charitable objectives. The problem arises where that conflicts with their objectives and trustees’ duties risk being overridden by the Government, which is simply not acceptable. That is what the new clause seeks to prevent.

New clause 3 would enshrine in legislation the right of charities to undertake political campaigning activity. We are clear that this is a direct attempt to challenge the unfair and poorly applied Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, commonly known as the gagging Act. Campaigning is an important part of democracy and civil society. One of the fundamental principles of a thriving and healthy democracy is that individuals and organisations can speak out on the issues they care about.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

On new clause 2, the hon. Lady made a case about charities’ ancient rights. She will be well aware that the ancient rules, going back 400 years to the time of James I, were very much against charities involving themselves in politics. I accept that there have been changes in charity law more recently, but it seems rather perverse that she prays in aid ancient charitable rights in relation to new clause 2, but is happy to ride roughshod over them in new clause 3.

[Anna Turley]

On the contrary, it was the gagging Act that rode roughshod over the historic rights of the charity sector to defend and campaign on the causes that charities fundamentally exist to tackle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think the problem was that the Government felt challenged. From the outside, they were happy to talk about being the most open and transparent Government ever, but once in power, they pulled up the drawbridge and were nervous about the challenge they faced from the sector on key issues such as badgers and the bedroom tax.

[Mark Field]

No one minds scrutiny. We are very happy to have bodies that want to engage in political lobbying, but they should not be charities. Charities have certain benefits, including tax benefits. Bodies that wish to be party political, biased advocates are perfectly able to be so if they are companies or other corporations. The point is that the charitable sector brings with it a range of benefits, not least in terms of taxation, that should not be abused for party political purposes.

--- Later in debate ---

I know that six to 12 months is a very different figure from 12 months and more, but in the circumstances—my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who is an expert in these matters, mentioned the 400-year-old history of charity law, going back to 43 Elizabeth and, I think, the Act of 1602.

[Mark Field]

We probably know more about Roman law than trust law from our time at university, but as I recall, it was indeed in 1602 and thereafter, during James I’s time, that charitable heads came into play. That is not unimportant to the debate. There has been a lot of radical change quite recently, which has upset the very essence of what charities should be about, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) pointed out.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

Clearly, I need to take my right hon. Friend around with me in a knapsack, particularly when I am speaking in the Market Harborough Conservative club. He is just the chap they want to hear more from.

To return to the serious point we are discussing, a longer period to enable charities, the Charity Commission and the Government to work out how best to move forward with the clause 9 provisions would be to the advantage of all. That would enable us to get rid of any glitches and look out for any Heffalump traps that may be lying there for the unwary.

My hon. Friend the Minister was very kind and met me in his Department with his officials on Tuesday 19 January. It came across to me that he was in listening mode and that the Government are very likely to move towards me to some extent. If he does, that would be very helpful. If he is able to say so on the Floor of the House, that would be even more helpful. That would enable me to do what I promised him and not press my amendment to a Division. I am here to try to produce clarity and better legislation. If he and I can do that together, in partnership, then everybody goes home happier.

I would like to touch briefly on a number of the paragraphs in my amendment. There are 11 areas specified. I appreciate that the Government have tabled their own amendment, which to some rather limited extent alleviates some of my concerns, but to be honest with my hon. Friend the Minister, the Government will need to go a little bit further than amendment 3 if all the concerns the charities I speak for, or have some connection with, are not to have their worries continue.

Subsection 23(a) deals with the first problem area:

“the number of people employed by charities who will be affected by the extension of the disqualification framework to cover senior management positions”.

For reasons of time only, I will not set out extensively the arguments that apply here, but we are concerned about an absence of detail so far expressed in Committee or in any other public pronouncements made by the Government in relation to this particular impact. I urge the Government to do a bit of work to see how many people employed by charities will be affected by the extension of the disqualification framework insofar as it relates to senior management positions.

Subsection 23(b) relates to

“the number of people who are trustees of, or employed by, charities who will be affected by the extension of the list”.

Again, will the Government please have a think about this and recognise that it is not a negligible problem? This is not just a whinge from a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust. This is quite an issue, which needs to be thought about. The impact of clause 9 needs to be considered in co-operation with the charities and the Charity Commission, so we can get this right for the long term.

I will provide just one example in relation to paragraph (b): a glitch caused by an unwitting failure to consider the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, as reformed in 2014. Under the 2014 amendments to the 1974 Act, rehabilitation periods for a convicted person were to some extent reduced. For example, an individual convicted of a sexual assault is sentenced to three years in prison. Assuming the individual does not reoffend, that conviction will become spent seven years after the end of the sentence. However, they will remain subject to the notification requirements indefinitely, with a right to review after 15 years. Under the Bill as currently drafted, the individual would automatically be disqualified from being a trustee for at least 15 years and potentially for the rest of their life. Under the 1974 Act, as amended, once an individual has been convicted, if they remain conviction-free for a defined period of time they are legally recognised as being rehabilitated. That is just a simple discrete example of where the Government, the Charity Commission and the charities sector need to get together and see how best to move forward.

Subsection 23(c) relates to

“the impact of the new disqualification framework on former offenders who are seeking, or intend to seek, employment in the charitable sector, including on their recruitment, retention, career prospects and long-term rehabilitation and resettlement”.

I made this point in general at the outset of my remarks. The one thing we, as people interested in reducing recidivism, need to concentrate on is getting people back to work, or getting people into work—of course, many people in prison have never been in work. If we want to get them back or into work, we need to reduce the barriers to that as sensibly as we can.

Subsection 23(d) relates to



“the impact of the new disqualification framework on former offenders who are currently employed in the charitable sector, including on their retention, career prospects and long-term rehabilitation and resettlement”.

That is the same point, but with a different shade.

Subsection 23(e) deals with

“the impact of the new disqualification framework on people with criminal records who are trustees or employees of charities which are partners in, or are contracted by, community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) and its impact on the successful running of those organisations”.

In line with Government policy under the coalition Government in the previous Parliament, community rehabilitation companies have been set up. They are contracting with charities to deliver rehabilitation and probation services. It would be a pity if good policy was undermined by making it much more difficult for ex-offenders to work with more recent offenders in order to rehabilitate them. Again, we need to think very carefully and collectively about that.

Subsection 23(f) deals with

“the effectiveness of the existing waiver process provided for under section 181 of the Charities Act 2011”.

Charities have significant concerns regarding the effectiveness of the existing waiver application process and the ability of the Charity Commission to administer the additional applications that will result from the introduction of the new framework without any additional resources. In the past six years, the Charity Commission processed only six waiver applications. The Government suggest that this shows it is effective in granting waivers but that fails to recognise the disproportionately low numbers of waiver applications compared with the number of trustee positions and the estimated number of people with unspent convictions for existing disqualifying offences. Once one has expressed the point, I hope its obviousness becomes clear to the Government. Again, the charities I speak for, the Charity Commission and the Government need to sit around a table and thrash out how best to deal with that. As we say, six to 12 months is not long enough for that to be achieved.

Subsection 23(g) deals with

“the impact of the new disqualification framework on the number of applications for waivers to the Charity Commission”.

It must follow, surely, that the extended disqualification framework is highly likely to increase the number of waiver applications, not simply as a result of the extension but of an increased awareness of the framework that will inevitably flow from the production of guidance and general awareness raising. The Government, however, have not provided any assessment of a likely increase in waiver applications as a result of the extension of the disqualification framework. More troubling is that the Minister has confirmed that no additional resources will be provided to the Charity Commission to administer the waiver application process. The obvious inference is that the process will slow down and become more sclerotic. I hope it will not, but let us discuss the matter and iron out the problem in advance.

--- Later in debate ---

In closing, let me say that these are points we made in Committee. We will see whether the Minister can be persuaded to accept our amendments this afternoon. I hope he can be, but I hope also that those following this debate are in no doubt whatever that, for all the headlines and the occasional bad press that the voluntary sector receives, there are a great many of us in this place who cherish the work that a vibrant and powerful voluntary sector does, both locally and nationally.

[Mark Field]

It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). I do not agree with everything he had to say, but one thing I do have in common with him is a great love of London as a whole. I love walking through London, and it was only last summer that I went to Barkingside for the first time. I realised how important Barnardo’s was at the time—certainly in Victorian times, when it was a little Essex hamlet. I also saw the new housing development on that very site, which will clearly make a big impact, with some social housing—and, I suspect, possibly a bit of private housing, probably to help fund it. That development will be a real asset in the community that he represents.

I also thank the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), who spoke from the Front Bench, for her contribution. I remember a similar instance in opposition many moons ago—about 10 years ago—when I was speaking on the National Lottery Bill. I thought we had tabled an excellent set of sensible amendments that the House would surely take on board. I should not disappoint her too early on, when there are another two hours and 11 minutes of debate left, but I suspect that she might not get her way. Both Labour Members who spoke are from the 2015 intake, and they spoke eloquently. I would like to acknowledge from the Government side my sympathy for the hon. Lady, who has had to get involved in the major issue of the steelworks in Redcar. We must all have a huge amount of sympathy for her. Having to navigate that issue as a local constituency MP as well as doing day-to-day work here in Westminster must be incredibly difficult.

I have a little bit of sympathy with some of what the hon. Lady said, despite our rather fierce earlier exchanges. I believe it to be almost axiomatic in public life that once organisations such as the Charity Commission are set up, corporatised and granted ever-burgeoning budgets and staffing, they see their mission as expanding their empire of influence. This Bill has been a salutary example, in part at least, of the operation of such tactics. Problems have been identified that have long since been addressed and largely solved by the passion, commitment and the graft of volunteers, quietly—often informally and unpaid—working in their communities.

To take one apposite example, the extent of the local charitable activities of many of this nation’s leading independent schools has been transformed over the past decade, let alone the last generation. Yet rather than welcoming, heralding and trumpeting the success of the big society, which is what I think this amply represents, we risk promoting big bureaucracy in the shape of the Charity Commission. We must resist some of the amending provisions, especially new clauses 2 and 3, which we will doubtless debate further, and I want to take the House on a short journey within a stone’s throw or two from here.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman acclaim that the greatest triumph of the big society was the work of its poster-girl, Camila Batmanghelidjh, from the kids society?

[Mark Field]

As a matter of fact, I believe it was called Kids Company, not kids society. She was an individual who had worked with a number of politicians. There are issues that I am sure should rightly be addressed by Select Committees and others about what precisely happened in regard to Kids Company.

I was about to take the House on a short journey from this Chamber to the site in Tothill Street where the Harris Westminster Sixth Form centre stands. Since its foundation in 2014, this academy has been the focus of substantial collaboration and co-operation with Westminster School, one of the oldest foundations in this country, which is even closer at hand in the curtilage of Westminster Abbey. That co-operation includes teaching classes with small intakes in subjects such as Latin, Greek and German. For over a decade, the school has routinely offered science outreach and summer school partnerships to several local maintained schools.

As the local MP for the past 15 years and an erstwhile president of the St Andrew’s youth club, the oldest youth club, on Old Pye Street, I know it has played a massively important role in the local community. Many people live in social housing, so the club was a magnet for young boys and girls—initially just boys in the 1860s, but girls in more recent times—not just from the immediate Westminster area, but from further-flung places south of the river, too. I was well aware that when the club lost funding from the local authority, it was Westminster School that stepped into the breach, providing cash and gym apparatus. I suspect that scores of other local charitable organisations could tell similar stories about the time, money and equipment quietly donated by the Great School, which has been an integral part of the local fabric since 1179.

Charitable status, as Members have pointed out, rightly depends on what the charity in question is established to do, rather than on a Charity Commissioner’s subjective analysis of public benefit. Here I agree with much of the thrust of what was said by Opposition Members. While we all appreciate that charitable status confers financial and reputational benefits, I strongly believe that the Charity Commission is not the appropriate means of prescribing how independent schools or other organisations should satisfy the public benefit test.

Indeed, it appears that for party political reasons, independent schools, rather than other charitable bodies, are in the sights not just of many MPs—dare I say, particularly on the Opposition side—but of leading lights in the Charity Commission. Surely a more sensible approach, one that avoids any accusation of political and particularly party political bias, would be to work on some non-statutory guidance to these organisations about the anticipated nature of their public benefit engagement.

We should also recognise that many independent schools do not have the capacity or the financial resources to sponsor academies—some lack the playing fields, drama, arts and music facilities, commonly assumed to be the norm in private schools. In truth, there is still plenty of co-operation and sharing going on between independent and nearby maintained schools—a healthy, informal co-operation, which stands to be undermined by any proposal to define levels of contribution or to extend the public benefit, as we have understood it in the past. It is worth saying that it takes two to tango: there is little that independent schools can do if the state sector head at the nearby school refuses an offer to work together. It is surely invidious to place burdens of the sort proposed if the independent school in question does not have the ability to achieve the Charity Commissioners’ objectives.

I shall not detain the House. We are having an interesting debate, and in truth I share some of the concerns expressed by Opposition Members that part of this legislation purports to solve problems that many charitable organisations and independent schools in particular have by their own efforts done much over the years to alleviate. Indeed, some of what is set out in the Bill betrays worrying assumptions that underlie an outdated sense of “groupthink” that besets the Charity Commission. I very much hope that, in its wisdom, the House will today reject some of the amendments, particularly new clauses 2 and 3 if they are pressed to the vote. Failing that, I trust that the Government Whips will achieve the same ends.

[Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It is an honour to speak in the debate. I hope not to detain the House too long. Let me first congratulate the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) on mentioning the late noble King James VI, given that the only charitable organisation that still exists from his reign is, of course, ScotsCare—based here in London and doing fantastic work.

Concerns have been raised in Scotland about the possible impact of this Bill because of the myriad issues it raises relating to the governance of charities across these islands. I am sure that these concerns will be shared by Northern Ireland Members, too. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the burgeoning budgets of the Charity Commission for England and Wales, but between 2007 and 2015, its budget was cut by 48%, so let us scotch that myth straightaway.

No one should be in any doubt that in the space of the last 18 months civic society has been rocked by the recommendations of the Etherington report, and this crisis of trustee leadership that has brought us to this very point. To be clear, the level of trustee oversight in national organisations leaves a sour taste in the mouth—not just of those in this Chamber, but more importantly of those who have volunteered as trustees in the majority of charities across these islands.

It is telling that the organisations that have caused the most concern are the so-called national charities with well kent faces that have been held in high regard. What is the impact on the organisations so far investigated? It is limited, yet the impact on the majority of small charity trustees has been profound. They find themselves labelled in the mire of mismanagement, which has led us to this point, as they have been sullied by the bad practice and lack of due care.

Some may say that these small and medium-sized organisations will not be impacted by this legislation, yet we fail to recognise the profound impact this period will have on their ability to recruit, retain and develop their volunteer trustees. It is commendable that many Members in this Chamber are themselves trustees. The Minister for Civil Society, who is no longer in his place, noted that point, and I commend him for it. However, merely being an MP should not qualify someone to be a trustee through default of their position, as it were.

I am sure that the Members to whom I have referred are well versed in their areas of interest—notably the issue of ex-offenders, about which they have spoken eloquently today—but I am also sure that some Members, especially those who were elected at the most recent general election, were asked at the time of their election whether they wished to join various charities as trustees or directors merely on the basis of their predecessors’ having undertaken such a role. I believe that that in itself exposes a misguided approach to trustee recruitment, although it must be said that it is taken by only a small number of charitable bodies, and appears to have been adopted mainly by the larger organisations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field]

Given my earlier contribution, the Minister may recognise that I am slightly concerned about the notion of the Charity Commission having a view at all. Surely the important things are what Parliament has to say and the establishment of the objectives of any particular charity. We should all have concern about the notion of the Charity Commission imposing its will over the objectives of a charity.

[Mr Wilson]

My right hon. Friend need not worry about the Charity Commission imposing its will on charities; there are many safeguards, including the referral to a charity tribunal, to make sure that that does not happen. Ultimately, the Charity Commission relies on the support of the sector itself to make sure that it can function properly.

The commission already publishes details of its non-inquiry compliance cases when it is in the public interest to do so, and it does that without a specific statutory power. When the regulator has to intervene and issue an official warning, it is right that that should be placed in the public domain, although it should be made clear that when the issue that gave rise to the warning has been addressed, it should be archived after a period. The commission has a published policy on how it reports on its regulatory work, and it is available on gov.uk. The commission would need to update the page with regard to official warnings, so that there would be a clear policy. Charities can and do make representations to the commission about the publication of particular information.

Amendments 8 and 10 would undermine the increased transparency and public accountability of official warnings, turning them into an ineffective tool without real impact. Amendment 11 seeks to limit the Charity Commission’s ability to issue a warning, so that it could do so only after a minimum notice period of 14 days. On the surface, that would ensure that, in all cases, the trustees had sufficient time to consider the notice of intention to issue a warning and co-ordinate any representations that they might wish to make.

I am sympathetic to the aim of ensuring proper notice, but I believe that that should be addressed in the Charity Commission guidance. It is already clear that if the Charity Commission decides to issue a warning, it must give notice of its intention to the charity and the trustees. The warning power may be appropriate in some circumstances when the commission needs the flexibility to act more quickly than 14 days. Following debate in Committee, the Charity Commission has recognised the concerns raised and it has reassured me that it will normally apply a minimum notice period of 14 days. That will be made clear in its forthcoming guidance, which will be published ahead of these powers coming into effect.

Finally, I believe that the changes proposed by amendment 12 are unnecessary as they aim to remedy a problem that does not exist in the current draft form of clause 1. It is already clear that any remedial action that the Charity Commission may suggest in response to a warning does not amount to a direction. The Government have been consistently clear that the commission could not use the official warning power to direct charities, and I am happy to reiterate that position again for the record. What the power does enable the commission to do is provide advice and guidance to the charity on how it can remedy a breach that has been identified in the warning. This gives the offer of support to a charity so that issues can be resolved in a timely and adequate manner. It will also help charities to understand in more detail what processes or actions led to the issuing of a warning and what type of conduct could avoid this in future. I hope that I have laid out in detail to the House and to the hon. Member for Redcar why I do not support her amendments to clause 1.

I turn to Government amendment 2, which relates to clause 1. Previously, the power to issue a statutory warning did not include a provision that would specifically enable the Charity Commission to vary or withdraw an official warning once it had been issued. Amendment 2 rectifies that. Withdrawal could be necessary if it came to light that the warning should not have been issued in the first place or, in some cases, where the charity has addressed the issues set out in the warning. The power to vary a warning would likewise enable the commission to do so where the issue has been partly addressed by the charity, if the commission considered that to be appropriate. This is a sensible amendment and I commend it to the House.

Amendment (a) is unnecessary, because where the Charity Commission does withdraw a warning it will, as a matter of policy, set out the reasons for doing so when it notifies the recipient of the warning and publicises the withdrawal. I am sympathetic to the aim of the second part of the amendment, but do not support it. There could be a host of reasons why a warning is withdrawn, and some of them may warrant the details remaining on the public record for a period of time. The inclusion of this amendment could lead to unintended consequences that are detrimental to charities and to the commission. If a warning is withdrawn, there may still be press articles or other information referring to it, but if a member of the public then went to the register of charities, as the official source of information, they would find no mention of it there. In some cases, it may be better to keep a record of the warning there but explain that it has been withdrawn. The commission has already said that it would address these matters in guidance, which is the right place to consider them in detail. On that basis, I see no need for amendment (a).

The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) expressed concern that official warnings should not be used to force people to follow good practice. I agree. The explanatory notes make this clear, saying:

“Failure to follow good practice could not automatically be considered to constitute misconduct or mismanagement.”

I hope that helps the hon. Gentleman.

I now turn to the disqualification powers in clauses 9 and 10. Government amendments 3 and 4 are relatively modest, but we consider them to be necessary to ensure the proper operation of clauses 9 and 10. Clause 9 extends the effect of automatic disqualification to the most senior executive roles in a charity—that of chief executive officer and, where there is one, chief finance officer. In our discussions with the Charity Commission on this provision and how it would operate in practice, it became clear that there was a risk that a person employed by a charity who did not exercise any management function could be caught by the clause as it stands. This may be the case in a small charity that employs only one or two operational staff who may report directly to the board but do not perform management functions since those are fulfilled by the trustees. In those circumstances, the employee ought not to be caught by the disqualification provision as they are not involved in the management of the charity. Our amendment 3 ensures that this will be tightened up through drafting. Government amendment 4 makes exactly the same provision in relation to the power of the Charity Commission to disqualify under clause 10. I hope that hon. Members agree that these are sensible provisions to add to the Bill.

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) for tabling his amendment as it gives me the chance to provide some reassurance on the record. He is a strong supporter of and advocate for charities involved in the rehabilitation of ex-offenders, which is an extremely commendable cause. Charities and the voluntary sector play a significant role in the support and rehabilitation of ex-offenders, and we should recognise and encourage their important contribution to reducing reoffending and helping former offenders to reintegrate into society.

I want to ensure that the Bill’s provisions do not have an undue impact on that very important work.

The disqualification provisions are important. Although the existing system has worked well, it needed to be updated. The Bill seeks to extend the disqualification provisions as an important way of protecting charities from individuals who might seek to abuse their position of trust, whether for personal financial gain, to abuse beneficiaries or for some other purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wilson]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for those kind words. We will certainly work very closely with those organisations.

Amendment 13 seeks to empower the Charity Commission to disqualify several trustees in cases of collective failure. In Committee, I explained that the Charity Commission already has the power to act in such circumstances and, indeed, has done so in cases relating to systemic governance issues. There is no reason why the Charity Commission could not take action against all the trustees of a charity where it was appropriate, proportionate and in accordance with the principles of best regulatory practice to do so. For that reason, I do not support amendment 13.

Amendment 14 would give the Charity Commission the job of consulting on and publishing guidance on how it assesses “unfitness” in relation to the power to disqualify, as set out in clause 10. We discussed a similar amendment in Committee and, although I agree with its intended effect, I do not believe that it is necessary. When the Bill was introduced in the other place, the Charity Commission published a well-received document setting out its initial thoughts on how it would exercise the disqualification power. The document highlights the broad categories that the commission would consider, namely honesty and integrity, competence and credibility. It gives various examples of the sorts of specific conduct that it would take into account. I explained a number of those examples in Committee and do not propose to repeat them today.

The Charity Commission has further committed to develop and consult on its initial thinking in draft guidance on how it would operate the power to disqualify. All of that will happen before the power to disqualify is commenced. As with any commission guidance, it will be kept under regular review to reflect changes in legislation or tribunal findings. On that basis, I do not see that amendment 14 is necessary.

Amendment 15 was previously proposed in Committee by the hon. Member for Redcar. The Charity Commission already considers only conduct that is “relevant and serious”. If it were to take account of other conduct, I would expect any resulting disqualification order to be thrown out by the charity tribunal on appeal. Besides that, the amendment should not be passed because the inclusion of the words “relevant and serious” in condition F would pose potential unintended consequences.

Including those words in the disqualification power could cast doubt on all the Commission’s other powers that do not contain them. The exercise of those other powers, such as the power to remove a charity trustee or the power to direct a charity, already depends on conduct that is both relevant and serious, even though those words are not included in the criteria for exercising the powers. I do not want there to be the risk that the other powers could be interpreted as not requiring relevant or serious conduct in order to be exercised. Although I understand and sympathise with the aims of amendment 15, I hope the House will understand why I do not believe that it is necessary and how it could inadvertently reduce the bar for the exercise of the commission’s other powers, which I would not support.

Amendment 5 is another relatively modest Government amendment that was suggested to us by rehabilitation charities. As I said in relation to the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, we are keen to work with rehabilitation charities to ensure that the Bill does not undermine their important work.

To make a disqualification order against a person, the Charity Commission will have to meet one of six conditions, from A through to F, alongside a number of other things. Condition B is that the individual has been convicted outside the UK of an offence against a charity or involving the administration of a charity which, had it happened in the UK, would have automatically disqualified the individual. As it stands, the commission can take into account only an overseas conviction that is not spent under the law of the territory where the conviction took place. It was pointed out to me that it would be fairer and more proportionate if the limitation related to the UK rehabilitation period for an equivalent UK sentence, rather than the rehabilitation period of the overseas jurisdiction. I agree that that would be more proportionate, and amendment 5 makes the necessary change.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) ingeniously managed to speak about independent schools. He made an important point about the variety of ways in which independent schools provide public benefit. There is not one single way to achieve public benefit and the Charity Commission would certainly not direct any independent school that there was.

New clause 2, proposed by the hon. Member for Redcar, represents an attempt to reinsert a provision that the Government removed in Committee. Let me explain why the Government oppose it. It was described by several peers in the other place as sending a signal of opposition to the Government’s plans to legislate to extend the right to buy to tenants of housing associations. That message has been received, considered and responded to. Extending the right to buy to tenants of housing associations is a manifesto pledge on which the Government were elected and are committed to deliver. It will mean that up to 1.3 million more families in England get the chance to own their own home while at the same time ensuring the replacement of housing stock.

We listened to the concerns raised. Rather than legislating to implement the policy, we reached a voluntary agreement with housing associations which will implement the policy while protecting the independence of housing associations.

[Mark Field]

It is important that the Minister reflects that that was a manifesto commitment—even some of us on the Government Benches had concerns about it, but it was a manifesto commitment. It was rightly brought up in the Housing and Planning Bill, and it is disrespectful to the House, and a dangerous precedent, when one Bill is used to undermine another Bill that is part and parcel of a manifesto commitment. That also happened in the previous Parliament on the boundary changes, when a measure in an entirely different bit of legislation was used to oppose that policy. The House of Lords is abusing its position if it thinks it can do that in that form.

[Mr Wilson]

I am sure the noble Lords along the corridor will have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend. I hope the Bill will not be altered further as a result of his very strong words.

G20 and Paris Attacks

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I met the King of Saudi Arabia at the G20 and we discussed the situation in Syria. It is fair to say that Saudi Arabia has quite a strong de-radicalisation programme for its own citizens who have become extremists, and that has been successful. As I have said, we need to ask more broadly how we stop people setting off down the path to extremism in the first place. That is important in terms of what is taught, and how it is taught, in schools and how we make sure that, in all our educational practices right across the world—whether we are Christians, Jews, Muslims or Hindus—we are teaching tolerance and understanding right from the very start.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Although I suspect that many, both in this House and beyond, will find it unpalatable that we are talking to President Putin at this time, I wholeheartedly support the Prime Minister having those discussions. Picking up on the point made by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), is it the case that the Government are still trying to work towards getting a UN Security Council resolution on these matters, hand in glove with the other strategy to which the Prime Minister has referred?

[The Prime Minister]

We keep talking with Security Council partners about potential resolutions that we could put forward on any number of issues to do with this overall problem of ISIL, Iraq and Syria. However, something to back the sort of military action we have spoken about in this House has not been possible up to now, because of the potential Russian veto. It is important for us to understand that it is possible to act within, and with the full backing of, international law without a Security Council resolution. Obviously, it is better in many ways to have a Security Council resolution as well, but we cannot outsource our national security to a Russian veto or, indeed, a veto by anybody else.

Recall of MPs Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

May I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that he may be confusing sentence with offence? There is no attempt to make a retrospective offence. What we are saying is that one of the tariffs to which an hon. Member would be subject is recall. It is about balancing the rights to justice with the rights of our constituents. If he is saying that he will oppose us on this measure, I do not think he will find many colleagues with him in the Lobby.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) might find me as a supporter. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the Government’s reasoning in this regard may be to draw a line under the past? In fact, they said as much earlier on. We all know that the public were appalled by the expenses scandals of the past. That is why IPSA was set up. It was designed to draw a line under the past and make sure that everything was independently audited. I hope we will continue to do that as far as future independent salary reviews are concerned, but the principle applies here as well. We need to draw a line under the past, and keep the future in mind.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let me help to draw a line. Members must make short interventions, not speeches. If we can make future interventions shorter, it will help.

Recall of MPs Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg]

I partly agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is about how all of us do the job and about the culture of politics, but it is also about legislation. I will come to that now.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I do not disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the level of distrust, but does he accept that the lack of independence of many MPs is the biggest concern for many of our constituents? Does he not think that one of the concerns about a recall Bill broadly, which I support, is that it would largely undermine that sense of the independence of the individual MP?

[Stephen Twigg]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Later I shall refer to a distinction that others have made in interventions and which the Minister himself made between our conduct as Members of Parliament and the issues that we vote on, and how we are held to account for our voting. The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point that although recall is, in my opinion, a correct mechanism for dealing with misconduct, it is a more questionable mechanism for dealing with issues to do with voting. One consequence of a particular model of recall could be to undermine the independence of MPs, for the reason that he gave.

In 2010 each of the main parties made proposals to change the system in response to the tide of distrust that I described. As the Minister said, each of us had a commitment to some form of recall in our manifesto. The Minister said that the Government have not rushed into this. That is an understatement: it is a shame that it has taken more than four years to have a Bill before the House. At one point both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister promised to pursue a new politics of democracy and transparency. Well, it has taken them quite a while to get round to it, and now that they have, neither of them seems very pleased with the Bill before the House.

The Deputy Prime Minister, who led on the Bill that was published earlier in this Parliament, said this summer that he agreed with the critics of that Bill, and just yesterday he said he wished that the latest attempt—the Bill before us today—had gone further. The Prime Minister, at Prime Minister’s questions last Wednesday, four and a half years after declaring his intent to pursue a new politics, said that the current Bill is the minimum acceptable. Surely after four and a half years they could have come up with something better than this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). I just want to pick up on one point. He said that votes for women were inevitable. I disagree. I of course passionately support women having the vote and it seems inevitable to us today, but it took a first world war and millions of people slaughtered across the continent for the political class in this country to change its mind on women’s votes. Nearly every political reform that has happened in this country that has been worth having has had to be fought for and has never been inevitable.

The first Reform Bill, when it came through the Commons in 1830, was carried by a single vote. Mrs Thatcher only became Prime Minister because of a single vote in the no confidence vote in 1979. Habeas corpus, when it was put on the statute book in 1679, was carried by two votes in the House of Lords because a very fat peer was counted as 10 votes—it should never have passed. If one believes in parliamentary reform, one has to campaign for it and to fight for it. Nothing is ever inevitable. I know the hon. Gentleman has been fighting and that is why I do not think he should undermine his cause.

[Mark Field]

There was a general election in May 1979. It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s attention, but that was not in this place; it was outside among 60 million Britons.

[Chris Bryant]

If it had not been for the vote of no confidence and the nationalists joining with the Conservatives in March 1979, there would not have been that early general election.

If I am really honest, there is part of me that does not want to have anything at all to do with recall, because part of me thinks we should have confidence in the parliamentary process and just have shorter Parliaments. Five years for a fixed-term Parliament is far too long: it should be four years. However, we have got to where we are because our parliamentary system is broken. It is bust in important ways that matter to the public. We are held in utter contempt as a class, if not as individuals. I recognise what the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) said. All of us know that the vast majority of politicians—more than the vast majority; virtually every single politician I know—have honourable intentions and ambitions only for what is best for their country and want to change the world according to their lights for good. The truth, however, is that that is not what our voters think. Our voters have come to a completely different conclusion. Maybe that is because, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, we have sometimes made ludicrous promises that we knew, even when we made them, we were not going to be able to deliver. The classic example is tuition fees. I could say that to the Liberal Democrats, but they could equally say that to Labour Members when we first introduced tuition fees.

It may be that familiarity in the past century has bred contempt. One hundred years ago, people did not know what their Member of Parliament looked like. Many MPs never lived in their constituency and hardly ever visited. When Edmund Burke was MP for Bristol he visited it twice—no wonder they did not vote for him. He also made some profoundly arrogant remarks on the role of a politician and a Member of Parliament. We think that this is all terribly unfair, but the end result is that voter turnout is falling, and falling in different kinds of elections. Turnout is at its worst for police and crime commissioner elections. I think it was always inevitable that they would have a particularly low turnout. Incidentally, should there not be recall for them?

After the second world war, in 1950, the turnout in the general election was 83.9%. At the last general election turnout was 65%, even when we leave out the millions who have not even bothered to register. In one seat, Manchester Central, the turnout was just 44.3%. If that is not the electorate voting on whether our system is bust, what is?

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Carswell]

I would rather not get into the subject of electoral reform, although my views on it were not generally mainstream in my old party, and I am open to ideas and suggestions. Recall would be a key part of reviving our democracy.

[Mark Field]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is being rather unkind about “safe seat syndrome”, which has been the focus of much of his attention. My own seat —the seat that I currently occupy—has been Conservative for an unbroken period since 1868. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman—and, perhaps rather more importantly, my 73,000 constituents—that I work extremely hard. I treat my seat like a marginal, and I think that the same applies to many MPs. It is an attitude of mind. It may be entirely irrational, given all the hard work that must be done in the run-up to an election, but I think that many MPs, whether or not they have safe seats, take a very diligent approach to their constituency work.

[Douglas Carswell]

My hon. Friend has made my point for me, rather eloquently. There are very good and decent people who come into Parliament with good and honourable intentions, but why is it so often the case that those who enter this place with good and honourable intentions do not—in the public’s eyes, at any rate—do what it was hoped that they would do? I submit that it is because they end up facing inward. They come here, and then they face what other MPs in Westminster determine should be their priorities. That is the problem. That explains why so many good and decent people come here and end up not achieving what their constituents hoped for.

I think that, by giving voters the power to sack MPs, recall will break open cartel politics. I am somewhat bemused when some Members seem appalled at the very notion that the public might actually vote out of office an MP with whom they disagreed over policy—shock, horror. Surely that is the whole point of politics. The Minister attacked the very idea of a politically motivated recall, but surely “politically motivated” is what we are supposed to be in this Chamber. I thought that that was the essence of politics.

I look forward to voting for the Bill, and to supporting the amendments that will make it meaningful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) that there has been too much self-flagellation as part and parcel of the process that has led towards this Bill, we cannot dispute that a lot of the concerns that underline these measures are to do with trust—I am talking specifically about trust in the political and parliamentary process. The public appetite for parliamentary recall was turbo-charged by the reputationally ruinous expenses scandal that broke in 2009. That brought to public attention the decades-long scandal of a self-regulated system in which secrecy and opaqueness by the political establishment were the watchwords. That was then compounded by the calamitous rearguard attempts by the parliamentary great and good to use the courts to prevent the publication of details of dubious expenditure claims of public money—a process that was sensationally broken open by The Daily Telegraph.

Slowly but surely this place has been dragged into playing catch-up. Ever since the expenses scandal, this House has paid lip service to the importance of restoring public confidence in the political process. A central part of that has been the public insistence for genuinely independent regulation. Yet the centrepiece of this Bill flies in the face of giving our voters, rather than political insiders, the authority to drive recall.

I regret that the coalition’s revolutionary intentions, as set out in May 2010, have been so watered down.

[Douglas Carswell]

Does the hon. Gentleman have any confidence in his party leadership’s record on political reform?

[Mark Field]

That is a rather unfair question. It was the hon. Gentleman’s party leadership until a few weeks ago. I have some confidence—perhaps hope springs eternal—that there will be other elements of reform going through. I am afraid that the constitutional record of the coalition Government has been lamentable in the way that it has worked out.

As hon. Members have said, it is entirely understandable that the Government have tried to find a mechanism to weed out trivial or vexatious complaints. For sure, there will be abject disagreement on purely partisan political issues, as well as furious disagreements between an elector and his or her parliamentary representative, but that should never trigger the recall process.

As I am now disagreeing with the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell)—my friend, but my former hon. Friend—I should congratulate him on his recent re-election. I know that he pays the closest possible attention to these issues. Although we profoundly disagree about the desirability of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union and about immigration policy—I think it is in the national interest that we have a calm and rational debate, rather than one that plays to members of his current party—we were, as instinctive democrats, in the same Lobby for the November 2011 referendum vote and with regard to House of Lords reform, which would have brought about an elected second Chamber. Our views are similarly aligned on the importance of sound money and the need for a much more urgent emphasis on deficit reduction than seems acceptable to Britain’s political elite.

More importantly, in this era of established political parties being set out in law, surely an elected representative’s decision to switch political parties should automatically trigger a recall. I would support an amendment to achieve that if the hon. Gentleman were to table one. I respect his decision and that of the erstwhile Member for Rochester and Strood to put their money where their mouth is and let their electors determine their future. Why should voters be deprived of the opportunity to hold to account an MP who switches parties but is unwilling to resign? Surely that should be a prima facie reason for recall.

I fear, however, that the Minister has instead boiled down the grounds of recall to just two small conditions, the first of which applies to criminal convictions and will operate along similar lines that already exist for expulsion from the House. However, the second condition, which applies if the Standards Committee imposes a suspension from the House of 21 or more sitting days, is much too open to party managers’ political manipulation. Let us not be naive about the conduct of party leaderships and the Whips Offices. They will, as they have always done, try to manipulate such a process to protect or condemn as they see fit. After all, that is what party managers do, and that is precisely why they must have no part whatsoever in the recall process. The overriding need to restore public trust is the reason why they should have no opportunity to interfere with the recall process.

The Standards Committee is still appointed, rather than elected by the House as a whole, so while its members are often able and diligent, that has the consequence that emollient and obedient MPs may be selected as its members, especially if a helpful outcome to a sensitive case is desired. As we all know, if cases come before that Committee, the House is able to impose penalties ranging from expulsion and suspension, to an order to repay moneys, when appropriate. It is all too easy to see how favoured sons and daughters—errant Ministers perhaps—might be made subject to stringent repayment conditions, but have imposed on them a suspension that is lenient enough not to trigger the second recall condition. I agreed with much of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said about that.

I fear that this is not a wild academic concern. Let us consider some of the matters that have recently come before the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Standards Committee, and then the House. For example, two former Cabinet Ministers were both ordered to repay more than £40,000 in inappropriately claimed second-home expenses by the commissioner. Following long and protracted inquiries, no doubt aided and abetted by an unhealthy interest from party managers, they were subject to a sanction that would not have triggered recall, even though the strength of public opinion meant that they both had to resign their ministerial office.

By contrast, in the past year two independent-minded Back Benchers—Patrick Mercer and Denis MacShane—have resigned from the House after being suspended for long terms, although neither had made similarly substantial personal financial gain requiring the repayment of public money. I do not wish to draw entirely direct comparisons between those sets of cases. I simply ask the House to reflect on the fact that the mere perception that pressure might be brought to bear to favour MPs closer to party leaderships, or indeed to militate against those regarded as more easily expendable, will only further undermine public confidence in this new process.

I very much agree with many of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and look forward to these issues being debated at length in Committee. I do agree with the Minister that there is an increasingly strong case for a mechanism to allow constituents to recall their MP. In my view, there is an almost unanswerable case that we will have to have such a Bill. I am only sad to conclude that this Bill fails to rise to the occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have indicated that the Bill could be improved and that we are willing to listen to proposals, but that does not necessarily mean adopting the proposals from the hon. Member for Richmond Park.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said we were better off trusting our own constituents. Like all Members, of course I trust mine, but it is not the constituents who are the issue; it is the campaign groups and vexatious individuals who might decide to launch repeated recall petitions with no basis, as opposed to challenging MPs because they have committed serious wrongdoing.

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)was worried that people who had been detained in a police station might be caught by the Bill. Clearly, that would not be the case in any circumstances. The word “detention” is designed to capture circumstances where an MP, having been convicted and sentenced, is ordered to serve their sentence somewhere other than in a prison—for example, a young offenders institution or a hospital.

I welcome the very rational comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) on the EU and immigration—I am just sorry they will not do him any good. I wonder, however, whether in three years he might not feel that it is his party that has deserted him and that instead of him leaving his party, he should stay put and other people should move to another party.

[Mark Field]

I can confirm that I will not be joining the Liberal Democrats.

[Tom Brake]

I was not suggesting that was what the hon. Gentleman had in mind; I was thinking he might set up a party called the “One Nation Conservative party”.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) on securing this debate.

As the right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, politicians the world over were at great pains to avoid the policy mistakes that followed the banking collapse of the 1930s. Conventional Keynesian pump-priming was continually invoked as the means of preventing a recession from turning into a depression. Depressingly, rather less interest seemed to be given to the equally important lessons that the 1929 to 1933 era taught us about protectionism. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which raised tariffs drastically on goods that were imported into the United States in a bid to protect American jobs from foreign competition. That Act sparked a domino effect among America’s trading partners, who predictably imposed similar measures to protect their own economies. The result, as we all know, was a terrific slump in world trade that devastated economic growth and caused unemployment to soar. Only the ensuing second world war helped to get the global economy on its feet again.

In 2010, as growth remained elusive, I wrote and spoke in this House of my deep concern that we might see a new wave of protectionist measures being introduced by politicians who were under pressure to protect domestic markets. The House might recall the defensive, almost nationalistic tone of the debate as Kraft’s hostile takeover of Cadbury was going through, particularly from the Opposition Benches. I called at that time for political leadership to make the case strongly for the massive benefits of free trade and to break down the remaining barriers.

It is in that context that I am heartened, four years on, by the enthusiasm with which the transatlantic trade and investment partnership has been embraced by policy makers.

[Julian Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite all the hassle Kraft got, its £70 million commitment to Cadbury and Bournville is another example of the great benefits that inward investment can bring to our country?

[Mark Field]

Very much so. I suspect that my hon. Friend knows more about the chocolate industry than I, particularly as he is a Yorkshire MP.

The enthusiasm that I mentioned has been seen predominantly on this side of the Atlantic. The main aims of the partnership, on which formal negotiations began last July, are to increase trade and investment between the US and the EU by reducing tariffs, particularly on agricultural products; to align regulations and standards; to improve the protection for overseas investors; and to increase access to services and government procurement markets for foreign providers.

There is no doubt that the prize is enormous and that the TTIP is highly ambitious. The US is and will remain the EU’s most important trading partner, with some $2.7 billion of trade daily in goods and services.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has commissioned a cost and impact assessment on the agreement. That research states that

“an EU-US investment treaty would impose costs on the UK to the extent that it prevents the UK government from regulating in the public interest.”

Why is the hon. Gentleman so gung-ho about such an agreement when the Government’s own impact assessment states that the investor state part of it will cause problems for us?

[Mark Field]

I look forward to the Minister destroying one or two of those arguments. I suspect that the hon. Lady has provided a selective reading of the BIS impact assessment.

Much of the media coverage of the TTIP has focused on the trade of manufactured goods. Rather less attention has been given to a sphere of commerce in which the UK economy excels globally: financial and professional services. I represent the City of London, which is a hub not only for banking, but for a range of related service businesses such as accountancy, insurance, consultancy, the law and pensions management. To put into perspective the importance of those industries to the UK, in 2012 the financial and associated professional services sector employed some 7% of the UK work force, produced some 13% of total economic output, contributed £65 billion in tax and generated a trade surplus of £55 billion.

The City of London is strongly supportive of the TTIP, but has been consistent in its belief that no industry should be excluded from the partnership’s scope, including financial and professional services. There would be benefits not only through boosted trade, but through a reduction in the potential for the kind of regulatory arbitrage that currently means that differences in the implementation of financial standards are exploited, thereby putting financial stability at risk. Some of the regulatory differences are unavoidable because of the variations in EU and US market structures and cultures. Others cannot be justified on prudential grounds.

As was demonstrated so painfully in 2008, we tend to get regulatory co-operation only in times of severe crisis, when deals are brokered at the eleventh hour to avoid market fracture. If financial services were within the TTIP’s scope, I believe that we could design a stable, long-term framework for the discussion and co-ordination of regulatory issues long before we hit the next crisis point. The other great prize is that we could create a larger, more efficient market place for EU and US financial institutions, thereby solidifying their leading role in global financial regulation—a market that will get much bigger in Asia as the emerging economies of China, India and the like strengthen.

It is for those reasons that the EU has been lobbying hard for such services to be included in the TTIP negotiations. However, there is still stiff opposition from the US Treasury, which suggests that the TTIP is primarily a trade pact, not a forum for regulatory co-operation. The fear seems to be that the US might lose its sovereignty over regulation. It must be made clear that that is not what the EU proposes. Nobody wants to undermine existing regulations, even the Dodd-Frank Act. Co-ordination is quite different from capitulation. We need sustained, high-level political engagement to bring financial services within the TTIP’s remit.

I am concerned that there is insufficient public awareness of the TTIP, including what is at stake, what the challenges and benefits are—I accept what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) says—and what the potential benefits are. Quite understandably, given the systematic undermining of the world’s political and economic elite in recent years, which has been referred to, there is a wave of distrust at the tenor of the negotiations that are under way. There is a common perception that side deals are being brokered to benefit global corporations, posing a risk to national sovereignty that might see our independent courts being made subservient to outside arbitration. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified his position on those arguments this afternoon. I encourage the Government to run an even more visible campaign on the TTIP that allows us all to have an open, honest discussion about its potential benefits and drawbacks.

[Julian Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the UK Government that should be carrying out that publicity, but the EU? Instead of focusing on Eurobarometer and the other daft publicity ideas that it has, the EU should be spending its money on promoting the benefits of this agreement to its population.

[Mark Field]

I accept that, but realistically we in the UK probably also need our Government to make clear some of the benefits of trade—some of us in the Conservative party are convinced that the best future lies within the European Union, hopefully with a certain amount of reform going on as well. None the less, it is important that our Government make that strong case.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman able to comment on earlier remarks by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) about exempting the NHS from the TTIP? Currently it is not exempt, although I have asked several questions of the Government to ensure that it is.

[Mark Field]

If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will not comment on that but will leave it to the Minister. I wanted to speak about financial services, and I appreciate that time is tight.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Briefly, my hon. Friend mentions the need for an EU-US regulatory framework for financial services, which I have not heard of before. How does he square that with what, for example, the Basel agreements try to do globally at the moment? Is that really the way forward?

[Mark Field]

I say simply to my hon. Friend that given the potential huge benefits of the TTIP, it seems odd that important industries such as the financial and professional services are not included in it. Clearly we are in a state of flux about a lot of international and national regulation of financial services, but it seems that this would be a good place for us to make a robust case for open markets, particularly in an industry that will clearly develop in many other parts of the globe beyond the EU and US.

It is important that those who are proposing the TTIP show just what it can add to people’s lives in terms of trading opportunities, jobs and a better variety of consumer products. If there is a perception that the deal is being engineered in an opaque way, it is likely to fall apart and we shall lose an enormous opportunity. Crucially, the United States must do the same. In that nation, protectionist sentiment and economic nationalism are now fast replacing the wave of enthusiasm on which the TTIP initially rode.

Needless to say, progress in this field of influence will resonate strongly in the UK Government’s negotiations for reforms within the European Union. It was, of course, the wily German statesman Bismarck who observed that

“politics is the art of the possible.”

Although I believe it is sensible that the UK Government do not raise excessive expectations as to what might be achieved in negotiations with our EU fellow members, it is at least worth observing that in the aftermath of last autumn’s EU budget settlement there appears to be a new mood towards some level of reform. One hopes that some of the UK’s traditional European allies such as Poland, Finland and the Czech Republic, will not feel encumbered by a resurgent Russia from making the case for some fundamental institutional reform in the EU. Time will tell, I think.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to say a few words. This debate on the TTIP shows once again that the UK Government’s goal should be that we remain the most outward-looking trading nation. We have every reason to have been proud of that in centuries gone by, and hopefully we will be in the years and decades to come.

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

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to set out which of the scandals—MPs for hire, Fred Michel, Fijigate or whatever—are covered by the codes, I would be happy to hear him do so. The problem is that they are not. We have already heard some eloquent speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and others showing that that is not the case.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Is not part of the problem that some of the so-called scandals to which the hon. Gentleman refers involved people impersonating lobbyists and so did not involve lobbying in any meaningful way at all? With regard to his earlier exchanges with the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), I must say that I find the idea that those who sign up for the voluntary register are necessarily the good guys rather naive. I think that the Government are trying to deal with a genuine concern in this regard and should be congratulated on doing so.

[Thomas Docherty]

I must say that I think the PRU needs to get a better briefing sorted out, because I am not sure what genuine concerns the hon. Gentleman refers to. Perhaps his inbox is different from mine, but in the three and a bit years that I have been in Parliament not a single constituent has contacted me to say, “I’m really concerned that the permanent secretary at the Government Department, when sitting in a room, does not know who the person sitting opposite him is and who his clients are.” Actually, given his constituency, I suspect that his inbox is very different from mine.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend is nodding; he will be presenting our reactions.

“Norwich Pharmacal” is the phrase used by lawyers to describe a process that grew up in the sphere of intellectual property law, in which someone is enabled to apply for the disclosure of evidence—documents, usually—relevant to a claim that they are making. It is used to force a third party who is mixed up, however innocently, in suspected wrongdoing, to disclose information that a claimant feels may be relevant to a case that they are bringing in some other jurisdiction, usually abroad.

In 2008, as a result of ingenious arguments, the Norwich Pharmacal principle was extended to national security law. The purpose of proceedings under the principle now is for people involved in a legal process of some kind, usually overseas, seeking to obtain disclosure of intelligence material in the hands of the British Government.

As the purpose of the proceedings is only disclosure—no other judgment is being sought—the Government do not have the option to withdraw from or settle proceedings; if the judge orders disclosure, there is no option but for the Government to release the secret intelligence. That has given rise to understandable fears that if a person shares information with the British Government’s agencies, British judges have the power to order the release of some of it and that person cannot be certain of being able to resist that.

There is no point in my setting out obvious platitudes about the nature of intelligence work. If intelligence agencies are not able to guarantee to their sources, be they friendly overseas Governments or agents, that they can keep secrets, people will not share so much information with them. Lives will literally be at risk in some cases as will international co-operation on such vital issues as torture prevention and human rights.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Clarke]

I will give way and then seek to persuade the House that those fears are not fanciful or false; the problem is happening now.

[Mark Field]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. I entirely agree; he has admirably put forward the concerns about Norwich Pharmacal and the historical accident that has arisen as far as national security cases are concerned. Was he not tempted, therefore, simply to exclude Norwich Pharmacal matters from national security—in other words, make it absolutely clear through Parliament that the Norwich Pharmacal arrangements should be regarded narrowly as being available only in intellectual property cases and should not apply to national security matters? Is he not taking us down a rather more convoluted route in the Bill?

[Mr Clarke]

The practical effect of the Bill is exactly as my hon. Friend recommends, although it may have been drafted with a few too many provisos and provisions because of the deep suspicion with which these things are regarded. Essentially, however, we do not think that Norwich Pharmacal should apply to intelligence material provided in confidence to the British security services.

I will not take too long on this because the argument is perfectly straightforward, but I want to tell the House that these are not false fears. Over the past year, we have picked up concerns from human agents. They have always been concerned about the degree to which their relationships can be protected, of course, but they are now becoming really concerned about disclosure to the British courts. Sir Daniel Bethlehem, a former legal adviser to the Foreign Office, told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the flow of intelligence from the United States was being limited. He said that he did not want to exaggerate, but the point was that the trust of the United States had been weakened and that trust needed to be restored.[Official Report, 8 January 2013, Vol. 556, c. 3MC.]

Arguments tend to break out as to whether agents have any reason to be fearful, but that is not totally the point. As long as, as a result of hearing about the extraordinary process called Norwich Pharmacal, other intelligence agencies and our agents think that there is always a risk of disclosure by the British courts, the damage is done. To follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), what on earth are we running that risk for?

European Council

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman said before we return to the European budget issues in February. Frankly, however, if we want a good deal for Britain in terms of the level of payments we make, we have to accept the fact that in an enlarged European Union—and we support enlargement—we are going to see a greater percentage of those structural funds go to the relatively poorer countries of eastern and southern Europe. I think we have to understand that when we take part in the negotiations.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

On the issue of banking union, I wholly endorse the Prime Minister’s view that we were able to secure in Brussels the very best deal in the circumstances. Will he confirm, however, that the double majority arrangements now set some sort of precedent for the two-speed Europe that many believe is in the UK’s national interest—on this and related matters?

[The Prime Minister]

I would make two points in response. I believe it is possible to have different countries involved in different things within the European Union. I do not particularly like the expression “two-speed”, which implies that one is racing ahead and the other is not, yet in many cases I would argue that not being in the single currency is beneficial for Britain, and not being in the no-borders agreement is right for Britain. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this was a breakthrough negotiation, showing it is possible to have a new set of rules to safeguard those countries that want to stay outside some European institutions.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I regret that I will not be in the same Lobby tomorrow night as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), even though I agreed with much that he had to say today. I think that the primacy problem in this place has nothing whatever to do with the House of Lords or even the House of Commons. The real issue that lies at the heart of UK constitutional politics is the corrosive effect of the overweening primacy of the Executive.

Anything, but anything that provides an effective counterweight to the oft unchallenged power of the Executive is, in my view, a good thing. I remain to this day staggered by the sheer gutlessness of this place, including of many Members who will vote against this Bill’s Second Reading and programme motion tomorrow night, because we waved through the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, and it was a terrible bit of legislation.

That legislation cravenly supported a reduction in the size of this House, and it was promoted by the Deputy Prime Minister on the basis of a fatuous saving to the public purse of £10 million a year, which even in his own words has been overwhelmed by the additional amount of money that will be required for the new House of Lords. At the same time, we failed either to nail down any commensurate shrinking of the size or cost of the House of Lords, or to address the constitutional iniquity surrounding the absurdly inflated Scottish Parliament and Northern Irish and Welsh Assemblies.

But I am a democrat, and since my maiden speech in this House I have supported, and will continue to support, a fully elected House of Lords. The case for the preservation of the “ancient traditions”, as many hon. Friends have assured me, of the upper House was conclusively lost in 1999. Once the vast bulk of the hereditaries had been removed, so too should all appointed Members have followed. Instead, today we have a bloated House of Lords, of which the Lords Winstons and Puttnams are assuredly the exception rather than the rule.

Over the past 13 years the ranks of the upper House have been swelled by literally hundreds of party hacks and large-scale political donors, along with dubious-quality legislators given the nod on politically correct grounds. In the charming words of my Liberal Democrat opponent at the last election, ironically herself also the daughter of a life peer, I was too “male, pale and stale”. That may well be the case, but I was also elected, and in a democracy that matters.

While I am happy to support the principle of electing the House of Lords both on Second Reading and in the vote on the programme motion, I believe that in many of its particulars the Bill is shoddy and poorly drafted.

[Mr Gray]

If my hon. Friend is right in saying that the Bill is shoddy and ill drafted, how on earth can he support the programme motion, which should have allowed us the time to put that right?

[Mark Field]

I will come to that at the end of my remarks, if I may.

The Bill misses the opportunity to propose an elegant solution that might have resolved effectively the four main domestic constitutional uncertainties that have plagued our whole political arena for the past three decades. I hope that when it is in Committee and in the other place we might be able to make some progress in that regard. With a federal UK parliament and four elected national parliaments, we could have not only maintained the monarchy, strengthened the Union, and resolved questions over the legitimacy of an unreformed House of Lords, but given independent and equal representation to citizens in England as well as in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

As many Members have said, the British constitution has been one of the success stories of modern politics. It has kept this country together, united under a common Crown and a common Parliament, for over 300 years—not for us the coups, revolutions and counter-revolutions that have plagued many of our European partners over that period. So successful has it been that we Britons had perhaps stopped thinking about some of its great successes. Until 15 years ago, nobody in this House or beyond gave much thought to constitutional issues; we knew instinctively that we had a British constitution that worked well for the whole of these islands. I am afraid that that was destroyed in 1999 when we got rid of the traditional House of Lords, removing much of the genuinely independent hereditary element and created hundreds of new life peers. Shamefully, this process has continued even under the coalition Government, with some 120 new life peers being created. That is unacceptable.

[David Tredinnick]

I hear what my hon. Friend is saying, but surely he must recognise that a lot of those who are made peers are experts in their own fields; it is not just a case of Lord Winston and one other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field]

They are the exception that proves the rule. Just look at the 120 who were made peers; we could mention particular names. It is an entirely misjudged view that the House of Lords is full of expertise. Clearly there is expertise—I do not dispute that for one minute—but it is very much the exception rather than the rule.

[Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mark Field]

No. I want to make a little progress because others wish to speak.

I think we all accept that the UK constitution has traditionally been full of anomalies. However, we also like the idea of fair play. As an MP for a seat in London, which is the capital of England and of the whole United Kingdom, I call on the Government to offer all the British people—English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish—a new settlement through this Bill that will be demonstrably equitable for everyone. I believe that we should move in the direction of creating an entirely new federal parliament so that we have four full national parliaments in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, together with all the existing powers of the House of Commons. The federal UK parliament would deal with defence and foreign affairs, make treaties, and administer a cohesion fund for the poorer parts of the UK. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) says that it would be expensive. In fact, it would be anything but, because it would mean that there were fewer politicians as all English Members would be members of both the English and the UK parliaments. It would reduce the number of elected politicians, which would be a much better approach. In a sense, it would be a unicameral system. I was the only Conservative who voted for a unicameral system when we had that option. To me, what we have at the moment is the most undesirable outcome of all. I would sooner abolish that, put nothing in its place, have a unicameral system, and make the positive reforms that I hope we are going to make. Abolishing the House of Lords would mean that Parliament was unicameral, but that has not proved to be a problem in Edinburgh or in Cardiff over the past 12 years.

All this and much more needs to be addressed in Committee, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) said, voting down the programme motion would be tantamount to trying to wreck the Bill as a whole. As a believer in a democratised House of Lords, that is something that I am not prepared to do.