Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Harper and Paul Flynn

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on people subject to the under-occupancy penalty of a reduction in funding for discretionary housing payments in 2015-16.

[The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper)]

We have actually increased the funding for discretionary housing payments to help those who are affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy, and, as the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement, it will be protected in 2015-16.

[Paul Flynn]

Does the Minister agree with the Child Poverty Action Group, which has said that any degradation of discretionary housing payments will threaten to “cut the parachute cord” that keeps so many vulnerable families from the homelessness and destitution created by the foul bedroom tax? Will he give an absolute guarantee that the payments will be not only maintained in real terms, but possibly increased when necessary, and ring-fenced?

[Mr Harper]

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my answer, he would have heard me say that the level of discretionary housing payments relating to the removal of the spare room subsidy would be maintained in 2015-16, as the Chancellor said in the autumn statement. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order about questions and answers last week. I think that my answer did relate to his question, and perhaps he should have listened to it.

Wales Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I will try to be relatively brief although I will say one or two things that I had not intended to say because I have been provoked by the previous contribution. First, the double standards are breathtaking. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) gave a perfectly reasonable speech and made it very clear that he was not attacking doctors and nurses but speaking about senior NHS professionals, yet he was accused of attacking doctors and nurses. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) then proceeded to criticise standards of health care in England, yet somehow that is okay because she is just pointing out facts. Absolute nonsense. If we see things wrong in our constituencies it is our duty as elected Members to point them out. My hon. Friend was simply pointing out to the Committee problems in his constituency that had been raised by constituents. [Interruption.] I am not surprised that Labour Members do not want to hear this. The NHS is not performing well in Wales, and I will set out why my constituents in England are concerned about that.

I am happy with the confirmation from the hon. Member for Llanelli that if her party is elected to government it will sort out the Barnett formula for Wales and give it more money without that affecting funding for Scotland. As an English Member, it is quite clear to me which way the bill will be coming, so I will be pleased to tell my English constituents that another reason for not voting for the Labour party is that they will be facing a large bill to give more of their taxes to be spent by the Welsh Assembly Government, as well as the money they give to Scotland. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that campaigning opportunity.

Amendments 12, 13 and 14 have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth—my constituency neighbour—and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). I listened carefully to their arguments and I am happy to support the amendments as I think the principles they outline are sensible. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy spoke about the Welsh Assembly Government’s policy of voice not choice. That would be fine if, when patients said something with their voice, somebody actually listened to them. The problem is that nobody listens, which is a real issue for my constituents.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Harper]

No, I will not give way; I will make some progress. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] Oh, go on then.

[Paul Flynn]

Why does the hon. Gentleman think the Public Administration Committee, which has a Conservative Chair and majority, gave the health service ombudsman in Wales as the model and exemplar to follow? It said that that was the best service of the four countries, and it also recalled that Wales still has community health councils, which act splendidly as a source of receiving complaints and dealing with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I do not know where to start with that rather childish intervention. There is no vacancy, because my right hon. Friend is doing an outstandingly good job as Secretary of State for Wales, and I hope he continues in his post for a long time. He is doing an awful lot better than the shadow Secretary of State would do if, God forbid, he were ever to get the job.

I am concerned because my constituents are affected by the not very well thought-through devolution settlement—[Interruption.] The evidence is constituency correspondence, a very well attended public meeting with hundreds of local residents, and a very active local campaigning group. This is a real issue in my constituency and thousands of constituents are affected by it. I am doing my job as their Member of Parliament by setting out their views. I have been very reasonable in my argument and I look forward to the Secretary of State’s response. He is a Secretary of State who listens to and deals with issues brought to him by Members of Parliament—unlike the shadow Secretary of State—and I look forward to his response to the debate.

[Paul Flynn]

What is entirely novel in the debate on health, which I have never experienced in my 28 years in this House, is for Wales and the Welsh health service to be used as a political football to kick around to save the skins of Tory MPs and fulfil the ambitions of Lynton Crosby. He is the one who is using the issue not to make legitimate complaints—it is right that hon. Members raise legitimate complaints, as they always have—but for something entirely fresh. At every Prime Minister’s questions, when the attention of the whole nation is on this place, questions are distributed to Welsh Tory MPs, and to non-Welsh MPs who do not know the places they are talking about, that criticise the Welsh health service and create the impression that it is a poor, second-class service. This is a malicious deception: it is not true.

There is a lot wrong with the health service in every part of these islands. There are weaknesses and everyone can provide examples of particular cases, but what is the effect when the impression is given, week after week, example after example, that the Welsh health service is rubbish? What does that do to someone waiting for an operation or treatment to be told, again and again, that the service they are getting is second class? A big part of the healing process is confidence. If confidence is destroyed, that damages the health of the nation on a very deep level. What happens to the people working in the health service who do marvellous but thankless jobs—the jobs we turn up our noses at—when they come home and watch the television at night? There is a hallelujah chorus of Tory MPs saying that the service is bad, not good.

Severn Bridges (Tolling)

Debate between Mark Harper and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Harper]

I agree, for this reason—I will be clear to the Minister—in an ideal world, I would like another crossing over the Severn. I would prefer that to be paid for out of general taxation and not require either tolling on that crossing or continued tolling on the existing crossings. However, I do not want the Minister to rule out, at this stage, considering whether at least some of the future tolling revenue should be used to fund a third crossing. I think the hon. Member for Newport East was tempting him to rule that out; she was tempting him to look forward something like four to four and a half years, to make some decisions about a future tolling regime on the crossings today and then to announce them to the House.

If I am given the choice of a crossing, I will take the crossing. However, if I am told that I cannot have a crossing for 20 years because it is unaffordable, but I could have one in a year or two if we were able to use some toll revenue, that is a debate I want to have with my constituents. I want to see whether that would be a good trade-off that my constituents might want to undertake—whether it can be balanced with the benefits to businesses, jobs, economic activity and relieving congestion. I at least want the Minister not to rule that out.

I have written to the Highways Agency, asking it to look at some options for further crossings and to set out the future useful life of the second Severn crossing and the old Severn bridge, to see how long they are likely to last.

[Paul Flynn]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the money from tolls on the bridge that he is suggesting should be tied in with the Severn bridges as they are now, which would guarantee tolls in perpetuity, but provide little service for the people of south Wales?

[Mr Harper]

All I am suggesting at this stage is that the Minister does not rule out considering that in the future. Of course, the tolls would not be in perpetuity, but I do not want to rule them out. The hon. Gentleman needs to reflect on the fact that the bridges do not affect just Wales. The bridges are three quarters in England; as I said, the old Severn bridge is wholly located in England, and it affects my constituents in England just as much as it affects his constituents in Wales. It is important for the House to remember that the debate about the Severn crossings and the tolling regime is not just a Welsh issue, but an English one too; and that it does not affect just south Wales, but, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) mentioned, the rest of Wales. This is a wider question, and we need to look at the economic impact on Wales and on England—in Newport West, Newport East and my constituency—and make a balanced judgment.

I was clear in my remarks: I would prefer another crossing over the River Severn that does not have tolling and that does not require tolling on existing crossings. However, I am realistic enough to know that, given the state of the public finances, caused largely by the Government whom the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) supported, difficult decisions have to be made. There is a debate to be had about whether we can have the infrastructure sooner by funding some of it from tolling. That debate is worth having, and I want to put it on the table. I am asking the Minister not to make decisions today for a position four and a half years in the future and rule things out that we may have cause to regret. That is all I am asking him to do. I have asked the Highways Agency to undertake some option appraisals, so that we can have a sensible and balanced debate in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

That is a perfectly reasonable point, which of course has to be balanced—I am sure the Minister will set this out—against some of the costs. I am clear: I want the tolls to come down; they can certainly come down by the level of VAT. I certainly think that they can come down. All I am asking is that at this point the Minister does not suggest that the tolls are swept away, if the cost of removing them would mean that a future crossing over the River Severn either never happened or only happened at some far distant point in the future. I am only asking him not to make that decision today, given that we have not properly considered the arguments.

[Paul Flynn]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Harper]

Let me just complete my point, and then I may take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman shortly.

I just want to respond to a point that the hon. Lady raised. I am sure that she did not do it deliberately, but she did not set out accurately for the House what the Welsh Affairs Committee said. I think that she said—I will take an intervention from her if I have misquoted her—that the Committee argued that the toll should be reduced to a level of £1.50, which would effectively just pay for maintenance. The Committee did not say that. It said that, if the toll was reduced to that level, that would allow

“the crossings to remain self-financing.”

It also said that

“the Government should seek to reduce the level of the toll at the earliest opportunity.”

However, it did not say that the Government should reduce the level to £1.50, because—this relates to my point about a future crossing—it said:

“We recognise…that at this level no “sinking fund” would be accumulated towards any future replacement of either bridge.”

The Committee also said, and I agree with the hon. Lady about this point:

“The Government must not be tempted to use the crossings as a ‘cash cow’.”

I agree with that, which is why if there is any future tolling over and above the level required for maintenance, the Government must be clear about its purpose. My view is that it must be used for infrastructure, which would benefit the hon. Lady’s constituents, my constituents and the economy of the UK. That would be the only scenario where future tolling, other than that required to pay for maintenance, would be acceptable. I agree with the hon. Lady about that, but I do not want the Minister to close any doors at this point.

[Paul Flynn]

The question that I asked the hon. Gentleman, which I am afraid he has not answered, was whether he foresees a repetition of what happened with the Severn Bridges Act 1992, which was that when the second Severn crossing was built, the two bridges were treated as one entity for financial purposes. Is he now suggesting that we should have another bridge that goes from one thinly populated part of England to another thinly populated part of England, which then becomes a financial burden on the people in south Wales, because those people will be paying tolls on it to use the main crossing from Wales to England? Can he please make it clear that he is asking for something that is entirely freestanding from one part of his constituency to another?

[Mr Harper]

At the moment, I have asked the Highways Agency to carry out some option appraisal work, to examine what options there might be for a further crossing over the River Severn, somewhere between the existing crossing at Over and the old Severn bridge. I asked because that detailed option appraisal work has not been done, so I have no idea where there may be sensible routes to cross the river, how much they might cost and what kind of traffic flows might be diverted. It is worth saying to the hon. Gentleman that, of course, there are significant traffic flows through my constituency that use my local roads, as people do not use the Severn crossings they ought to use because of the tolling. We have to look at all these issues in the round and make a proper judgment, which is another reason why the bridges need to stay under the control of the UK Government, so that different issues can be balanced. I accept that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady will be completely focused on south Wales. Of course they will be; that is the part of the country that they represent. That is absolutely right, but I am focused on representing my constituents in England, and I want to ensure that all these judgments are properly weighed up. At this stage, I am not asking the Government to commit to tolling or to building another crossing. All I am asking at this stage is for the Highways Agency to respond to my request to consider the options, and for the Minister not to shut off future debate about what the tolling regime should be.

I have been quite clear—in an ideal world, I would like there to be no tolls on the bridges, or perhaps only those to cover maintenance. However, the fact is that if we want more infrastructure, it has to be paid for, either by general taxation, which is difficult given the difficult financial position that we inherited, or by the users of that infrastructure, or by a combination of the two. I simply want to ensure that we can have an open and frank debate in the future, and that we do not simply shut off any avenues. I think the hon. Lady was simply tempting the Minister to look forward four, four and a half years—or however long he will confirm to us—and make final decisions today that will shut off some of the opportunities for debate and for future infrastructure growth. All I am asking him to do is to keep those options open, so that we can have that debate, properly balance the needs of my constituents and his constituents, and the Government who are elected at the next election can make those sensible judgments. That is all I am asking for, and I hope that the Minister can confirm that that will be his approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

When the first bridge opened, Harri Webb wrote a telling poem, recalling the pressure from Wales over many decades to build the bridge. However, he made the observation:

“Two lands at last connected,

Across the Severn wide,

But all the tolls collected,

Upon the English side.”

Things have been corrected since then, but the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has released another hare that is running, and the implied threat of tolls in perpetuity will cause a great deal of interest in Wales. I believe he has in mind a repetition of what happened when the second bridge went up: the pooling of finances to build bridges into a great lump, with all the complexities of financing that, and added to the total bill and debt—if that still exists—would be a sum of money for a third crossing from somewhere in Gloucestershire to somewhere else in Gloucestershire. Those are thinly populated areas in which I doubt there is a strong case for putting in another bridge. If that is seen to be a further burden on the main artery out of Wales, that would be deeply resented, so we will be interested to see if that is pursued.

[Mr Harper]

I have two points. First, many people going into Wales do not use the bridges, but come through my constituency. That is an argument for reducing the tolls, as the bridges are not the only crossing. Secondly, I remind the hon. Gentleman, however, that, as I think the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) touched on, the old Severn bridge goes from England to England and it is used by people from England and Wales, not just people in Wales. Therefore, we need to take a balanced view about the impact. The crossing at Over that the hon. Gentleman referred to suffers from significant congestion. If he thinks that the area is thinly populated, I suggest that he goes there on a Monday morning at about 7 am to sit in a queue of traffic. He will see that it is not as thinly populated as he might think.

[Paul Flynn]

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), I am old enough to remember not only the opening of the Severn bridge, but the terrifying and unforgettable experience of going across on a ferry: there was roughly one inch between the car and the water on one side and about half an inch to the next car on the other side as they packed the cars tightly on to the ferry. To escape that nightmare, many made journeys around Gloucester. As he said, the congestion was pretty bad at that time. The hon. Gentleman has to make that case, but it should be separate from the Severn bridges, which are not only the main roads from Wales to England, but a main European highway. For those travelling from the continent right across to Ireland, that is the recommended route.

Unfortunately, we have had this long period of a perceived barrier in getting into Wales. It is a psychological barrier, but it is powerful. People see the crossing as an obstacle. They would say, “You mustn’t go that far, or we’ll be paying.” That barrier is perceived to be a great deal more than the actual cost. The toll is high enough, but if the total cost of running a car is added up—insurance, petrol and all the rest—it is not a huge percentage of that, except to those who travel across the bridge daily. The feeling that, somehow, this is an obstacle in the way of going into Wales has inhibited development and progress in Wales for many years.

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen that such costs appear to be created by accountants and it is difficult to argue against those. I can recall one time in the House when a courageous, or foolhardy, Conservative Member for Vale of Glamorgan argued for an increase in tolls. The toll was some £3.75, and he argued that it would speed the traffic through the bridge if the toll went up to £4, but that view was not universally supported.

We feel that this is the Roy Hughes memorial debate, because our late comrade mentioned the Severn crossings on more than one occasion, and probably on more than 1,000 occasions, in this House. He became very strongly identified with the bridges through his persistent, long campaigning. If he were alive today, he would be horrified that we are now faced with a new debt. The users of the bridges should be treated in the same way as users of other parts of the motorway network in the rest of the United Kingdom. They should not have to pay this unjustified toll in perpetuity, as it now seems to be. If the £88 million is paid off, the accountants in the Treasury would probably come up with some other pretext for charging even more and keeping the charges going.

Operation Jasmine (Care Home Abuse)

Debate between Mark Harper and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Harper]

I should have said that hon. Friends, as well as Opposition Members, will know of such cases, too. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent asked whether the prosecuting authorities would meet family members. That seems sensible. I have had experience of cases in the criminal justice system, in which—even if the outcome was not everything that people wanted—understanding what happened and having the facts, and understanding the thinking, at least gave people a sense that a proper process had been followed.

In my hon. Friend’s constituent’s case, and I suspect in that of many other families, even if they may not be happy with the outcome because the prosecutor has not been able to proceed with the case, it is important to know what happened to their family member and whether they were properly treated. Although that may not give them satisfaction, at least they may understand what happened and can ensure that they and other people learn the lessons, so that it does not happen again.

The hon. Gentleman is right. There is no place in our society for anyone who abuses anyone for whom they are supposed to be caring, whether a child, a vulnerable adult, or any other member of the community. We should always be vigilant about dealing with that.

Operation Jasmine was a long and difficult case for all those concerned, with 103 alleged victims, 63 of whom have subsequently died. That must be incredibly distressing for their families. I thought that it would probably help, given the hon. Gentleman’s questions, if I gave the House some facts about the operation and the outcome of the police investigation, which commenced in 2005.

[Paul Flynn]

In March 2000, a ten-minute rule Bill was introduced, seeking better control of neuroleptic drugs in residential homes. Some homes did not use the drugs at all, but in other homes 100% of residents were on those drugs, which meant that they often lived shorter lives and died in misery and confusion. Has there been any improvement since 2000?

[Mr Harper]

I am not familiar, apart from in general terms, with the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raises. I will draw that to the attention of my hon. Friend with responsibility for care standards. I am sure that the relevant Minister in the Welsh Government will also hear of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

The investigation commenced in 2005, when an elderly resident at Bryngwyn Mountleigh nursing home was admitted to the Royal Gwent hospital, where she then died. Partner agencies brought to Gwent police’s attention significant potential failings at Brithdir nursing home, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). Both homes were owned by Dr Prana Das. Following the investigation into this incident at Bryngwyn, further investigation by Gwent police identified a series of deaths at the home that required further thorough investigation, with the police identifying a further 11 cases where elements of neglectful care may have been linked to the deaths of those residents.

Initial work at Brithdir nursing home identified 23 further cases of concern where allegations of neglect had been investigated. The operation eventually investigated allegations of abuse at two further care homes. Gwent police took this very seriously—I think that that was the general sense of the contributions from Opposition Members—and allocated a dedicated police lawyer and Crown Prosecution Service counsel early on in their investigation. I think that they sensed how significant it was going to be.

As the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said, it was a thorough police investigation, involving 75 police officers, more than 4,000 statements, more than 10,000 exhibits and 12.5 tonnes of documentation. The Home Office provided special grant support for the police authority in Gwent, so that the costs of this investigation did not fall entirely on the police authority and cause detriment to wider policing in Gwent. That was right and proper.

There were three convictions against care home staff in 2008 for wilful neglect. The investigation then continued with further charges being sought against the main defendant, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, for manslaughter by gross negligence or wilful neglect. However, in February 2010 interim advice from CPS was that the cases had not reached the threshold required for criminal prosecution. The investigations were then completed. Further CPS advice to Gwent constabulary in February and June 2011 was that the threshold for manslaughter by gross negligence or wilful neglect had not been met in any of those cases.

I understand that the chief constable, not being satisfied with that advice, met the Director of Public Prosecutions to challenge the advice that he had received. The DPP reiterated the advice that, despite the thorough investigation, the case simply had not reached the threshold for reasonable prosecutions, given the difficulties of proving wilful neglect.

Hon. Members will be aware, from what the hon. Gentleman said, that the case was then taken forward as a joint investigation with the Health and Safety Executive. The decision was taken by the HSE to prosecute Dr Das, his company Puretruce Health Care Ltd and its chief executive, Mr Paul Black, in relation to neglect and fraud at two care homes, Brithdir and The Beeches in Blaenavon. The trial was set for January this year, but on 9 September 2012 Dr Das was badly assaulted in his home in an unrelated incident of aggravated burglary and has remained in hospital ever since, suffering from permanent brain damage. As the hon. Gentleman said, on 1 March Judge Neil Bidder, based on medical evidence that he had received, ordered that all charges relating to Das, Black and the company lie on file. If Dr Das ever recovers from his injuries, which I understand from the medical evidence is unlikely, the trial could continue.

I cannot remember whether the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) or the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who is sitting next to him, mentioned this, but the judge also ruled that Paul Black, the co-defendant, should not stand trial because it was not deemed appropriate to try him alone. I can understand, of course, that the fact the prosecution could not continue leaves families with a real sense that justice has not been done, but given that the judge decided the defendant is not in fit condition to stand trial, it is not obvious that there is an alternative prosecution scenario.

The judge also decided that, in the absence of the primary defendant, Dr Das, the company could not be tried either, because it is not possible for the company to have a fair trial given that the main individual controlling the company is not able to respond. The positive thing is that the charges lie on file, so if Dr Das ever recovers from his injuries, family members may be reassured that the case will continue, although, as I have said, the medical evidence is that that is very unlikely.

One of the questions that underlies what the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said is whether something like this could happen again. Important issues arise on whether we have proper arrangements to protect vulnerable adults from those who might seek to abuse and exploit them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Harper and Paul Flynn

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We want to ensure that we have firm but fair immigration controls, and that we have a cap on immigration, not least so that businesses can give British workers a proper opportunity to get into employment. If there are skill shortages, they can be dealt with. Our university sector is protected. We have sensible policies that have been announced to the House, and I am very happy to defend them.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment she has made of the Government’s drugs strategy; and if she will make a statement.

Parliamentary Lobbying

Debate between Mark Harper and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Harper]

It was new clause 76 to the Companies Bill 2006, which was debated on 18 October 2006. Yes, the hon. Gentleman voted against it, as, indeed, did the hon. Member for Newport West.

[Paul Flynn]

The Minister has eight minutes to build some kind of consensual approach to the subject, instead of which he is involving himself in petty political point scoring. Can he tell us how often he has been lobbied about the lobbying reforms since he has become a Minister and will he have talks with the Opposition to ensure that we have a consensual approach? Such an approach will possibly take us into the next Government, which is when many of us think these reforms will take place.

[Mr Harper]

I would have slightly longer to respond if the hon. Gentleman had not interrupted me. I was coming on to his point and was trying to deal with the questions he raised in his speech.

On the hon. Gentleman’s comment, the Government have made a lot of progress on transparency. We publish all the meetings that Ministers have with external organisations. If he had troubled to look at the written answers I have given—and, indeed, my meetings—he would see that I have had one meeting with the independent chairman of the UK Public Affairs Council on the subject. I have had no meetings to discuss the issue with lobbying companies and no meetings with anti-lobbying companies either. We will publish a comprehensive consultation, so that everybody can have their say.

That information on meetings has been published. If the hon. Gentleman had looked for it before the debate, he would have seen it. The details are available on data.gov.uk for the benefit of hon. Members. We also publish hospitality and gifts received by Ministers and special advisers, details of Ministers’ overseas visits, details of permanent secretaries’ meetings and Government procurement information so that we can see what the Government are spending and lots of other information.

The meetings that Ministers in the Department for Education hold are a very good example of departmental meetings. The sorts of people to whom they talk are not surprising. The most frequent meetings are with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardo’s and the National Children’s Bureau. Those are the sorts of people one would expect Ministers in that Department to meet, so that they can talk about serious and important issues. Transparency is very welcome.

The previous Government did not make progress on the matter. Just before the election, they committed to a statutory register in response to the events that took place in March 2010. At that time, several former Ministers were accused of behaviour that, following the report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, led to their being banned from the House for a significant period. I only say that to calm down some Labour Members who get rather paranoid about the speed with which the Government are working. As I have said, we will publish the consultation paper this month and we will make progress. The previous Government did not do that during the 13 years they were in office, so can we just have a bit of calm? I am very happy to work with the hon. Member for Caerphilly who speaks for the Opposition on a consensual basis.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Harper and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I do, and that is a very important point. Lobbying is a perfectly reputable industry for making sure that the voices of charities and businesses are heard, but it should be transparent so that people know who is talking to those in Parliament. That is what the Government intend to do—mainly to clean up the dreadful behaviour that we saw last year, which has resulted in some former Members having their passes removed.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The purpose of lobbying is to give further advantages to the already advantaged. Is the Minister not concerned that already lobbying has taken place between his Department and BSkyB which might have the most damaging consequences for the people of this country? Should not these reforms be brought in quickly by the Tory-Lib Dem junta?

[Mr Harper]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation that all lobbying is to benefit the advantaged. Members are lobbied all the time by charitable organisations, charities and, as I found in my previous role in opposition, those who campaign on behalf of disabled people, for example. It is important, however, that such lobbying is transparent and that people know who is talking to Members of Parliament and members of the Government. That is exactly what our statutory register will achieve.