Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman made a similar head count yesterday. His forensic fascinations, first with the early death of the Prime Minister and now with exactly who is on the Front Bench, continue to fascinate me. I am waiting with bated breath to see what his next rather peculiar fascination will be.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

T11. Will the Deputy Prime Minister extend his commendable enthusiasm to trusting the people and extending democracy by giving our people a right that is enjoyed in almost every other free country in the world—that is, will he allow them to vote on whether Charles, William or A. N. Other should be our next Head of State?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am struggling enough simply to make the case for what I see as the plain vanilla, common-sense proposition that the people in the other place who make the laws of the land should be elected by those who have to obey the laws of the land. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s proposition, but let us focus on the argument on the other place right now, as it has not yet been fully won.

EU Council

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have great respect for my hon. Friend, who takes a very clear view about which he feels very deeply. I think that there is a significant difference, which is that in Scotland, like it or not, the Scottish National party is committed to leaving the United Kingdom and was elected with a mandate for a referendum to do just that, whereas in the case of the United Kingdom and the European Union, most people in our country want a fresh settlement with fresh consent, rather than the binary choice of leaving right now or, indeed as I said in my statement, voting to stay in right now and thereby almost confirming that status quo, which I am not satisfied with—and I do not think many people are.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

How many of the hundreds of new jobs that will come from setting up the patent court will be located in the city that has been the home of the brilliantly successful United Kingdom Patent Office, now the Intellectual Property Office, the city of Newport?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not know the answer to that question; I will have to look very carefully and, perhaps, reply to the hon. Gentleman. The parts of the court that we will have will be pharmaceuticals and life sciences, an area of great national expertise, and it is a good deal for London and a good deal for the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

There are no plans whatsoever.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

In the interests of democracy and dragging the monarchy and the office of Head of State into the 21st century, can it be arranged for the new Bill to permit alternative candidates to stand as Head of State, given the misgivings about King Charles III?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman mentions what sounds like another attempt to resurrect the alternative vote system, which I do not think was greeted with universal acclaim last year and would not apply in this area either. More seriously, I do not think he should belittle the enormity of this change. We are getting rid of some very long-standing, discriminatory anomalies on male primogeniture and the rule preventing heirs to the throne from marrying—uniquely among all religions—Roman Catholics. That is real progress that has not been achieved in a long time.

Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The point about the Leveson inquiry is that its report will clearly be a major political, media and regulatory event. He is effectively reporting not only to all in the Government, but to everyone in Parliament, in politics and in public life who care about this issue. I do think—I do hope—that all parties will be able to engage in this, because we have an opportunity to deal with issues of press regulation and relations between politicians and the media that have not been right in our country but that, frankly, we will only get right if we work on a cross-party basis.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

As the only defence that the Secretary of State has is based on the fiction that the only way Ministers communicate with their special advisers is by e-mail, why has the Prime Minister forgotten the lesson of the David Mellor scandal, which is that a resignation delayed is a disgrace multiplied?

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Gentleman is really concerned, as I am, about making sure that all the information about this is properly looked into, what is preferable: a civil service-run process where you can look at papers and ask questions, or a judge-led inquiry with Ministers answering questions under oath where all the documents have to be revealed and the whole thing is pursued properly by a team of barristers who are expert at finding out the facts? This is why I do not really understand where the Opposition are coming from. If they want full factual disclosure before making a judgment about whether any ministerial codes were broken, this must be the most robust process.

Party Funding

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

The Leader of the Opposition will have heard my hon. Friend’s very reasonable request and it will be open to him to respond as and when he chooses.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the failure of one of his Secretaries of State to register a meal he had with the lobbyist Bell Pottinger this year on the basis that on the day in question he was digesting with his private stomach and not his ministerial stomach? Is not the distinction a false one? Nobody would give £250,000 for a social, private chat with the Prime Minister, but they would pay it if they were seeking access and influence.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Questions about registration are not matters for the Minister as responsibility for those lies elsewhere, but I wanted to hear the hon. Gentleman out. I do not think it is a matter for the Minister.

Diamond Jubilee

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

My reason for speaking is that I have lived under four monarchs, and I would like to present a view that will represent a diversity of opinion in the country, which probably has not been expressed so far in the debate. A Head of State wearing a green dress and bowing her head to Croke Park was a very powerful symbol of reconciliation, which I believe will have a profound effect on healing the wounds that have disfigured life in the island of Ireland for generations.

The Queen is still working, doing a full-time job, having been born in 1926. What a splendid example to the nation and to the House, which has just two hon. Members who are octogenarians. Their distinguished contributions should ensure that we encourage greater diversity in the House. It is one area where we fail. Great progress has been made; there is a larger proportion of women Members and more Members from the minorities, although not yet enough, but we fail dismally on the number of people who can remember what it was like before there was a health service, for instance. We should look with gratitude to the Queen for providing a magnificent example.

My third positive point is from the writings of Robert Rhodes James, a former Member for Cambridge and a respected historian. He raised a fascinating point about the feelings in the Conservative party when Mrs Thatcher’s premiership was coming to an end. He wrote of concern in Conservative circles that Mrs Thatcher might decide to call a general election, acting in her own interests rather than those of the nation, and that the Conservative party, the House and the Cabinet would not be able to stop her. The only person who could have stopped her was the Head of State, and I believe all of us agree that the Queen’s strength of character and the fact that she had served many other Prime Ministers would give us full confidence that she was the best person in that situation or any situation when a Prime Minister decided to act in his or her interests rather than the interests of the country.

Another tradition is represented in this country, certainly in my constituency when, in 1839, a group of Chartists demonstrated and their purpose was not entirely benign towards Queen Victoria. Twenty of them were shot. It is right that we look at the relationship between the sovereign and ourselves in a modern Parliament. One welcomes the fact that a new coat of arms will be added to the many already displayed in the House, but sadly there is virtually no pictorial depiction of the struggles for democracy by the Chartists, the Tolpuddle martyrs, the suffragettes and others who shaped the rich and strong democracy we have today. We should put that right.

The speeches that have been made so far have been sincere and heartfelt, and virtually all were true, but if someone wants to be critical, they are not allowed to be. If a monarch, or just a relative of the monarch, strayed from the paths of sainthood and perfection, it would be impossible for a Member of the House to be critical of that person. That is not sensible. If that circumstance should arise, we should be allowed to talk freely if words of criticism are necessary.

It is right, too, that the quarter of the population who describe themselves as republican should have their views heard. We know that figure is reflected in the membership of the House. When there was a debate some years ago about whether there should be an alternative Oath, more than 100 Members voted for it. To avoid the verbal rigmarole that republicans have to go through when taking the Oath, we should have an alternative.

Finally, I am sure that even with the history of my city, where republicanism has existed for at least 200 years, all the people I represent, whether they see themselves as subjects or citizens, royalists or republicans, will wish the Queen well on this occasion.

United Kingdom Statistics Authority

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I, too, am extremely pleased to support the motion. I speak not only as a Member of the House but as a member of the Treasury Committee. The House will be aware that we are extremely reliant on the quality of our national statistics as we supervise, regulate and seek to hold to account, at least at arm’s length, entities and agencies that are themselves extremely reliant on our national statistics. This appointment reflects very creditably on the Government for their willingness to choose, and to allow pre-selection hearings on, the highest quality candidates who can genuinely hold them to account rather than simply choosing placemen. This appointment fits into that good tradition, and the appointment of Robert Chote was another example of that.

I pay tribute to Sir Michael Scholar and also to the Public Administration Committee’s role in vetting not one but two candidates.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Would the hon. Gentleman extend those sentiments to the Mayor of London, who, when he was criticised for abusing statistics before a Select Committee of the House, reacted to the criticism of Michael Scholar by describing him as a “Labour stooge”?

[Jesse Norman]

I certainly do not share that view and I am not sure that the Mayor would share that view if he had further time to reflect on it.

Sir Andrew Dilnot is a person of impeccable personal reputation and great intellect. He has been garlanded with honours from our finest academic institutions and the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Anyone who has heard him present “More or Less” or heard his outstanding podcasts will know that he is an extraordinarily apt and adept presenter of information, and therefore perfectly fits an agency with the job not merely of presenting information and ensuring its integrity but of recruiting and engaging its users.

The truth is that we in Parliament and those in government cannot survive without good information and good numbers, and the Opposition, whoever they may be, cannot survive without the numbers that allow them to hold the Government to account. I hope that an early priority for the new chair will be to look at the private finance initiative, which hon. Members will know is one of my pet bugbears. I can think of no better example than that because there has been extraordinary abuse of those statistics, with things being pushed off-balance sheet, with standards that are not of the highest quality being adopted and—I am pleased that this is being addressed by the Government—with the creation of a situation in which it is possible to have an asset that is off-balance sheet not only to the country but to PFI contractors.

Sir Andrew Dilnot is also to be commended for his outstanding report on different ways of funding the provision of care for the elderly. It would be a very poor debate that did not recognise that and congratulate him on that report. His appointment fits into a pattern of improving the governance of our public agencies, and it is a principle that could properly be extended to other public agencies whose governance has been somewhat lacking of late. I think in particular of the Bank of England, whose court needs comprehensive restoration; the Treasury Board, which could do with refreshment; and the governance of HM Revenue and Customs, which needs higher quality senior officials and non-executives.

I conclude by congratulating the Government on this appointment, and Sir Andrew Dilnot on his acceptance, on his passion for statistics and on his independence of mind. I welcome the energy, the integrity and the intelligence which he will bring to the evaluation of policy, I hope, as well as to the assessment of statistics and their presentation to the public.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

This appointment is a major development in our parliamentary procedures. This is the first time that the pre-appointment hearings made a significant difference and had an influence in changing the candidate. The pre-appointment hearings came out of an investigation in the previous Parliament by the Public Administration Committee, which went to America and recommended that certain senior appointments should be subject to the procedure. We have heard the explanation given by the Chair of how the decision arising from the interview with the first candidate resulted in a second candidate coming along and how a member of the Committee was appointed to the panel that took part in the process. These are important changes that reinforce the view that this is a useful way of proceeding. The House has behaved in a responsible manner in this process.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) referred to the forces of darkness and the queen bee jelly that takes over Governments. Some of us can rejoice in being the forces of light who were against the previous scheme and against our own Government, and are still against it and against the new Government. So often when Governments change, it is not a change of philosophy, but an exchange of scripts. Of course Governments neurotically want to hoard their secrets for as long as possible. It seems extraordinary that it was only in 2007 that the arguments were exactly reversed—when I was sitting on the Government Benches arguing with my own Government, the Tory Opposition were saying that this was the big weakness in the Bill that went through. Now they flip over without a blush.

There was a time when I recall accusing Mr Alan Clark of supervising the largest and most shameless massage parlour in London, which was the Department of Employment, in his use of employment statistics. There was some truth in that. I had an exchange of letters with Margaret Thatcher in 1989, when a group of statisticians came to see me. They were distressed because the responsibility for statistics was being moved from the Cabinet Office to the Treasury, and they rightly said, “This is our life’s work. That will reduce these pristine, glorious statistics, wonderful graphs and histograms to garbage by politicians on the make.” They suggested that the Treasury was the Department with the greatest vested interest in fiddling the statistics and damaging the result of their work. Their whole professional raison d’être was diminished by that.

Mrs Thatcher sent me a letter in which she expressed her deep shock that anyone should express the unworthy idea that her Department would want to fiddle statistics in any way. We do not feel quite that way now. There has been a move forward. I mentioned the distressing episode involving the Mayor of London. It goes to show that the advance has not been complete—not all Departments have changed their mind.

The Mayor of London was rightly criticised by Sir Michael Scholar, and we have all praised him for the way in which he did that. Sir Michael has done very well. He challenged the Home Department with great courage. He challenged the previous Government and he has challenged Departments now. He did the job that he was set to do, but when he attacked the Mayor of London, the Mayor’s reaction was not to say, “All right, I got it wrong. I’ll change the statistics”.—no humility from Boris, of course. Instead, he called him a Labour stooge. It was an outrageous thing to say, given his lifetime of independence. Michael Scholar, as all today’s contributors have said, has done a splendid job of establishing that independence, and it is what we see in Dilnot.

There are still a few old lags in the House from the passage in 2007 of the Statistics and Registration Service Bill, which went through with hardly a flicker of interest; this is a crowded House compared with the number of people who attended back then. There was only one tiny piece of interest in the press, too, but it was an article that I repeated ad nauseum to the House at the time, because it stated that it was the most important Bill of the Labour Government—we had been in power for 10 years—and would have a bigger effect than anything we had done, including handing over power and independence to the Bank of England. The article was written by a certain Andrew Dilnot, and his entire career has rightly been in that area—suggesting that statistics need to be independent.

In the Public Administration Committee, we all saw Dilnot’s boyish enthusiasm for statistics. He talks about them as “Statistics”—these wonderful things, which are the key to all happiness and the path to knowledge and wisdom—

[Mr Straw]

And employment in your constituency!

[Paul Flynn]

Indeed. I will turn to that point now.

I do have a slight vested interest in the matter, because the largest employer in my constituency happens to be the Office for National Statistics, and that is why I like to deal with the cynicism that occasionally crops up about the well-being statistics. They might have cost £2 million, but they have certainly added to my sense of well-being, because they provide work in my constituency, and we should not be cynical about them. In the past we measured happiness, success and politics on the basis of gross domestic product, but that is not a sensible thing to do, because, when the nation’s prosperity increased, unhappiness increased as well.

There was a splendid T-shirt in Hungary in 2000. On the front it said, “What has 10 years of right-wing government done that 50 years of communism could never do?” and the answer on the back was, “Made the people love socialism”. They had put up with the equality of misery, because everyone was treated badly, but when they moved to the inequality of choice they were unhappy, because young men were becoming millionaires on the stock exchange while pensions were increasing slower than inflation.

There is a crucial difference between the two, and one of the myths of politics is that choice is an example to be pursued, and that everyone will be happy if they have choice. No, they will not. I am a child of the war, when there was no choice and we wore utility clothes, but everyone was on the same level, and that was much better than what we have now, with our children wanting to wear quality, fashion clothes. All the great myths of politics are there, so it is crucial that we measure scientifically our sense of well-being.

Many points that I wished to make have been made, but it was telling of Andrew Dilnot to give us one striking example of the need for truth and honesty in statistics. He did not mention the newspaper, but most people will recognise that he was citing The Daily Telegraph, which put out a big, 36-point, front-page headline, stating, “Public pensions to cost you £4,000 a year”. It had divided £9.4 billion by 26 million and got an answer of almost £4,000. The answer is actually £400, but that particular piece of fiction was repeated on the “Today” programme and in the day’s headlines, and it became part of common knowledge which is actually common ignorance, so it is right that someone such as Andrew Dilnot should be there to take on the powerful forces that put fiction into the public domain because they are innumerate.

Mr Dilnot made a number of other points, which were entertaining, about how we should move forward. He talked about an idea called “Tell me a story”. He would suggest to schoolchildren that they go to the website of the Office for National Statistics or the Government statistical service and tell him a story about aspects of the country, but expressed in statistics.

It is a matter of great satisfaction and pleasure for my constituents that this Swansea boy should have been upgraded to Newport—a matter of some congratulations. He can work in Newport under the benign observance of a quality MP, and I am sure that he will be extremely content. The hugely successful relocation of the ONS to Newport can continue and prosper. Gales of applause will be coming up the M4 today as a result of the House’s decision, which I am sure will be to reinforce the decision of the Public Administration Committee to appoint Andrew Dilnot as the best possible candidate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

The Attorney-General was asked—

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

1. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the Baker report on extradition arrangements.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

10. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the Baker report on extradition arrangements.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

I have not had any such discussions with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

[Paul Flynn]

Does the Attorney-General recall saying, in 2009, when in opposition,

“Our extradition laws are a mess. They’re one-sided. A Conservative government will re-write them”?

Will they? Or is this another example of this Government’s signature policy of promising miracles in opposition and delivering nothing in government?

[The Attorney-General]

The first thing the coalition Government decided to do on taking office was ask Lord Justice Scott Baker to preside over a report; of course, he was helped by others in that. We have now had that report. I will consider the recommendations that are specific to the Law Officers in conjunction with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office. That involves discussions with devolved jurisdictions. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consult on the recommendations that touch on her responsibilities, together with other members of the Government who can provide some input.

Parliamentary Lobbying

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Robertson.

“It’s an issue that crosses party lines and has tainted our politics for too long...an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money. I’m talking about lobbying—and we all know how it works. The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisors for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way. In this party, we believe in competition, not cronyism. We believe in market economics, not crony capitalism. So we must be the party that sorts all this out. Today it is a £2 billion industry that has a huge presence in Parliament… I believe that secret corporate lobbying, like the expenses scandal, goes to the heart of why people are so fed up with politics. It arouses people’s worst fears and suspicions about how our political system works.”

All those words were from our Prime Minister when he was in opposition.

The purpose of today’s debate is to ask how far we have got. How far has the Prime Minister delivered on those promises? The political class is probably less trusted than at any time in history. After the expenses scandal, the public have the right not to trust us. They will look at what we do and will almost always reach the worst conclusion on our motives. It will probably take at least a decade for MPs and for politics to win back the trust and confidence that we enjoyed in the past.

What have the Government done in their 18 months in power? They certainly promised, in the coalition agreement, a compulsory register of lobbyists, but progress has not been promising. All parties promise to end the excesses of lobbyists when they are in opposition. In government, both the Tories and Labour have bottled it.

The reason why the previous Government did not progress on instituting reforms was revealed in a frank interview by a former Cabinet Office Minister, who said it was because he and the Government were lobbied. We members of the Public Administration Committee were also lobbied, and we made the point that the people we had before us, giving their excuses as to why there should be no interference and why they should carry on in their own way, were professional persuaders and, in many cases, professional deceivers. They had to present the best case, and of course they were brilliant at doing that, because they train people on how to give evidence to Select Committees.

Thank goodness that the Public Administration Committee took a stronger line; its recommendation was that we need more safeguards to cleanse the parliamentary stable. We were short of a smoking gun when we made our report in January 2009, but smoking guns appeared within weeks; there was the sting involving the four Members of the other place and the “cash for legislating” campaign, and the extraordinary, shaming episode of politicians for hire. A group of distinguished politicians with great reputations were shown on television putting their integrity and reputation up for sale for a certain amount of money. Potentially, that episode was a greater scandal than the expenses one, but as far as I can see, we are making virtually no progress on improving that situation.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing such an important debate. The definition of lobbying is difficult to grapple with when drafting legislation. Where would he place trade unions? Does he consider them lobbyists?

[Paul Flynn]

The answer is yes. Trade unions are lobbyists, as are charities and all kinds of bodies.

The main argument that was made to Labour Cabinet Office Ministers is presumably the same one that lobbyists are making to the present Minister. Lobbyists find it impossible to defend the existing secrecy and the fact that large organisations and rich and powerful bodies can buy access to the Government—that is indefensible, and no one would pretend that it can be right. As that argument does not work, they have invented a new one about how reform will upset all the good people—the nice, friendly, cuddly charities and the trade unions—who will also be damaged. That was the main thrust of the argument used against the previous Government to undermine reform.

I am sure that the Minister will be happy to tell us how many meetings he has had with lobbyists. How much has he been lobbied?

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this debate. I have much sympathy with what he is saying, but it is very difficult for constituency Members who are approached or lobbied by investors or unions not to be seen as being lobbied. Surely that is part and parcel of an MP’s job.

[Paul Flynn]

One MP who gave evidence to the Committee was taking £70,000 a year from a commercial company. [Interruption.] Wait a minute. His offence related to the fact that the commercial company had interests in his Department. He said that jobs were going in his constituency and he was doing his job as a constituency MP. The answer the Committee members gave was that we all do our jobs as constituency MPs by fighting for jobs in our constituency, but we do not have to take a £70,000 bung for doing so, which is what the public look at.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and, as ever, I am following his remarks with close interest. Is not transparency the greatest safeguard? Do we not therefore need not only a register of lobbyists and an open record of contact between the Government and lobbyists, but full disclosure on the funding of lobbyists?

[Paul Flynn]

That is exactly what we need, and it was the main recommendation of the Select Committee.

I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he has had the same treatment as his Labour predecessor. Has he been approached by the lobbying organisations explaining how difficult reform would be, how difficult it is to reach a definition of “lobbyists”, and how reform will be so unfair to charities and trade unions? Will he tell us what he has declined to tell that splendid organisation, SpinWatch, which is investigating these matters—how many times and on what dates he has been lobbied, and what messages were conveyed to him? It looks as though the lobbyists have succeeded again by lobbying the Government to delay any activity or any sign of reform.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We MPs are regularly contacted by interested bodies. We do not necessarily have all the information in front of us, but we have hard-held opinions—opinions that make us, and blend with us, so that we form a view on what we should do in the House. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that a balance is needed? Members have a job to do and have hard-held opinions that we wish to hold on to, but it is not wrong for lobbyists to come along and give us their opinions and their information.

[Paul Flynn]

Indeed, it is not. That, of course, goes on as part of the system. Lobbying lubricates the parliamentary system, and always has. We lobby and our constituents lobby; of course that goes on. We are against what the Prime Minister has called “corporate lobbying”. Those who engage in it are the people who are potentially the most damaging: those who are seeking contracts, but do not want to do it on the basis of open tendering, and instead want to go behind the scenes to have secret meetings with Government. Some extraordinary decisions have been taken by all Governments on the award of contracts.

We want to make sure that no Minister’s judgment will be distorted by the possibility of the revolving door. It is extraordinary how, shortly after retiring, former Ministers find lucrative jobs with companies that they once dealt with as Ministers. When a contract has been awarded—sometimes for billions of pounds—who is to say that no one tipped anyone the wink by saying, “If you go for company A rather than B or C, we’ll make sure you are looked after, and get your hacienda in Spain. You will have a lucrative job in retirement”? There are many examples—hon. Members may be aware of them—from all Governments of the revolving door after Government, and the possibility that Government influence has been used.

The problem is not that those concerned are doing well out of their contacts, or are sullying their integrity. The problem is that the decisions they take in Government may be corrupted by the prospect of future employment and riches. There are strong cases for believing that that has happened, and might happen again. Unless we can jam the revolving door and bring reform, that will continue. We cannot reform the system without transparency.

[Alun Cairns]

In 2006 there was a proposal to amend the Bill that became the Companies Act 2006, which would have got a handle on how much companies spend on lobbying. The hon. Gentleman voted against the amendment. Is that an inconsistency, or has he changed his mind since then?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

Is this “Mastermind”? I really cannot account for the tens of thousands of votes I have taken part in on clauses of Bills. I shall disregard the hon. Gentleman’s intervention as worthless.

In November last year, the Deputy Prime Minister promised legislation in the current parliamentary Session, which ends next spring, but that has now been delayed and we are likely to have no change until 2013. Let us look at what has been happening since then. Has there been reform? Has there been a new atmosphere in the House? Do we treat lobbyists differently? I wrote to an hon. Member to say that I would mention him this morning. I shall not mention his name or constituency, but I spoke to him at length this morning. What he is doing might be entirely honourable—he takes an income of £30,000 from lobbyists—but it is not acceptable or wise in the present post-scandal Parliament. I believe that suspicions will be aroused and people will say, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” There may well be no fire. I am sure the man is behaving in the right way.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Surely in that case it is the job of constituents to vote the offending Member out. The issue is transparency. That is clear and on the books, and everyone can make his or her own judgment.

[Paul Flynn]

Yes, but the problem is that the public will, with some justification, believe the worst of us after the expenses scandal. They had all those assurances before. The excuses will not work, and we need clarity and simplicity in the way we behave. It is entirely wrong for a Member of Parliament to be employed by a company—£30,000 is a substantial amount, many times the minimum wage—and, having taken that money, to raise subjects on which the company concerned is campaigning, and then say, “Of course, this is about the interests of my constituency; it approached me on the issue.” That is what the hon. Gentleman in question says. I believe that the public are right to be suspicious of us, and I refer to the words of the Prime Minister in that regard.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Would the hon. Gentleman consider it permissible to do that for nothing?

[Paul Flynn]

No. The position is this. Someone may want to lobby on a subject, but what a Member is allowed to do should be a question of their interest, conscience, constituency and so on. If someone who is taking a considerable sum of money from an outside body appears then to be pursuing its business—what it is asking for—that is extremely foolish and dangerous. I have explained that at length and had a long conversation with the Member in question. I believe that there is only one Member in that position.

When I came into Parliament 25 years ago, probably a majority of the Members in one of the parties took money from outside sources. Some were openly referred to as the Member for this or that company. In the previous Parliament, one was referred to as the Member for Boots, with some justification—there is some truth in that view of things. We are Members for our constituencies, and are paid handsomely for our work. We are paid a full-time wage. We should not have income from outside. There is a splendid book on the subject, which I commend to hon. Members, that suggests that all MPs should put any income they receive above their salary into a charity fund. That would do something to restore the public’s trust in us.

What else has been going on? New interest in the debate has been precipitated by the Werritty scandal. That will continue and other hon. Members might want to speak about it. We have allowed honeyed words to be used, and have talked about a blurring of the ministerial code, when we know that what happened was a flagrant abuse of the code. The investigation will continue, and many matters arise from the Werritty scandal, which should be of interest to us.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Is not one of the ironies of the Werritty case the fact that Sir Gus O’Donnell’s report declared that Mr Werritty was not a lobbyist?

[Paul Flynn]

Indeed. I read it with some interest. Yesterday, three very senior figures, including past Cabinet Secretaries, came before the Public Administration Committee to discuss the matter. I was very concerned about what has happened. We know that in this case it seemed that a secret foreign policy was being created. Money was coming in from organisations that many of us would regard as having extreme aims, to subvert Government policy. Where commercial firms were involved, were they there to buy influence, or to influence contracts? Anything on those lines is entirely wrong, and if those contacts were made, they should have been made publicly and declared. They were not. We will have to learn the lesson there.

Even on smaller matters, can we trust the Government, who last year altered the ministerial code so that all meetings with lobbyists should be declared by Ministers, when this week we learn that one Secretary of State enjoyed a five-star dinner at the Savoy, held by a major lobbying firm, and that among the other guests was a company that was lobbying his Department? Instead of transparency and openness, we have the Secretary of State defending himself and saying that on that day he was eating privately, not ministerially. [Interruption.] Indeed, he is eating very well, and his eating habits are a matter of some interest to the House, and parliamentary sketch writers. However, that is a small example, although not of enormous significance: it is a sign of the lack of any conviction in government about instituting genuine reform.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

On the case that my hon. Friend cites, is he aware that that Minister was performing a quasi-judicial role, and that if a judge had had such a dinner, people would have gone to prison for contempt of court?

[Paul Flynn]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We cannot deal in excuses and half truths any more, because of the position we are in. If there is a rule—and the Government created that rule, for goodness’ sake—let Ministers abide by it and not make silly excuses.

Advocates and paid representatives of some of the worst and most oppressive regimes in the world use this building and this House, to invite MPs—sometimes naive MPs—to visit their countries, to try to win their support. Among such countries, Azerbaijan and Equatorial Guinea are very active at the moment. Should we allow that to continue? Should we allow this building and its facilities, and the good will of Members to be used, in the way that other Parliaments have cosied up to oppressive regimes?

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Paul Flynn]

My hon. Friend is going to mention Libya.

[Robert Halfon]

No, I am not.

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and I congratulate him on securing the debate. I am a vice-chairman of the all-party group on the Kurdistan region in northern Iraq. I have been there twice, and the visits are declared in the register. They have been incredibly educational, because I wanted to visit a progressive, Muslim and democratic nation that follows the rule of law. Surely my visits were a good thing?

[Paul Flynn]

My comrade Robert—as I call him—and I serve together on the Public Administration Committee, and we have many common causes. I would not suggest that there was anything untoward in what he does, and I am sure that he does not receive an income from the Government of that country. However, other MPs do, directly or indirectly, from some regimes. Money is being paid—it is all there. It is a question about the way in which we are going.

I want to pay tribute to Tamasin Cave of SpinWatch and the other organisations that have persisted in their support for the Select Committee’s recommendations about what all Governments are doing. We must ask ourselves: are the Government serious about the matter? Are we making any progress in rebuilding our reputations? Are we quelling what the Prime Minister called the public’s “worst fears and suspicions”? We have to be concerned about those fears and suspicions. The perception of how this place behaves is crucial.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He has outlined the need for people to know about Members being approached and lobbied. Would it not be helpful if all Members did what some Members already do—I have done this in my constituency—which is to make it clear to the public and our constituents when we are lobbied and when we have refused to be a victim of a lobbying group, so that other lobbyists get the message that there is no point in lobbying MP X because he or she has made it abundantly clear in the local press that he or she will not be lobbied, receive favours or be fêted? That would help address the issue of perception that the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

[Paul Flynn]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. That is precisely what we should do. We must take a puritanical line with ourselves to ensure that the public believe us. When the public read about what is going on and see the drip, drip of stories about links between MPs and others, they will assume that we are all in the business of being influenced by outside sources.

[Simon Hart]

I have spent the past 18 months encouraging constituents to lobby me, either as individuals or in groups. We have to be careful that we do not say, “A plague on all your houses”. Some constituency lobbying is extremely valuable, informative and educational, and we should encourage it.

[Paul Flynn]

I am grateful to hear from a former lobbyist. I believe that the hon. Gentleman’s previous career was lobbying for the abuse of small, loveable animals for fun—that was his message. I am sure that he would have found a welcome in the current Government if he was still lobbying for animal abuse, which is what he believes in and is his passion.

[Simon Hart]

If I may correct the hon. Gentleman, I recall that he was rather supportive of a donation of £1 million to the Labour party by the Political Animal Lobby, which he supported hugely, in the 1990s.

[Paul Flynn]

I certainly supported all animal welfare groups for many years in my political capacity, which is what my constituents want.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

They were lobbyists.

[Paul Flynn]

Indeed—

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

And they gave you money.

[Paul Flynn]

No, they certainly did not give me money. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend said a moment ago that we should be much more puritanical. I think that I am a Labour Cavalier rather than a Puritan, but we should have all sorts in our party.

My hon. Friend and I served on the Council of Europe for some years. I was astonished at the delegates bringing girlfriends, wives, staff and children, all at the same time, filling up the Members’ room and using expenses to put them up in nice hotels. Does he think that we should stop all that, and that Members should go on any such delegation visits by themselves?

[Paul Flynn]

The situation is quite clear. If that happens, anyone who goes out, including staff, should not add any cost to the public purse. If my right hon. Friend would like to investigate the case, he would find that even dinners at an embassy are now paid for at a rate of €30 for any guests.

Transparency about those who are getting through to the Government at the moment arose when the issue about good, selfish and commercial causes was raised again. According to a report in The Guardian, there have been 10 times as many meetings between the Government and corporate lobbyists as there have been with trade unionists. There have been four times as many meetings of corporate lobbyists with the Government as there have been with charities. Already, a process is going on secretly behind closed doors. The loud and insistent voices come from those who can afford to buy expensive lobbyists and access to Government.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern for transparency, and I am sure that a number of the cases to which he has alluded are regrettable or wrong. However, we must not besmirch the names of many people who work in the public affairs sector. I used to work in the related public relations sector. I hosted a reception for B&Q the other day in Parliament and many Members turned up, and I dealt with a public affairs company hired by B&Q for that purpose. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that—it wanted to get the message to parliamentarians about its excellent community work. What is wrong with that?

[Paul Flynn]

What is wrong with it is the incestuous relationship between Parliament and the lobbying world. Many Members, particularly new ones, used to be lobbyists—there is a bigger number than ever before—and many MPs hope to become lobbyists when they retire.

I have been speaking for a long time, so I will make my final point. Our great problem is that the tentacles of lobbying are sunk deep into the body politic, and it is very difficult to remove them. Two Governments have so far failed to do so, in spite of the Select Committee’s urgings. Of course there can be excuses and explanations, saying that there is nothing sinister about the issue, but I return to one of my previous points, which is that we must restore our reputation with the public.

Our reputation is in a terrible state after the expenses scandal. The public have a right to be suspicious of us and to disbelieve our excuses. If we give them a chance to say, “This action by an MP could be misinterpreted,” as in the case of the Member who was receiving income from a lobbyist, we should have a code of conduct that will remove any doubt. A person cannot eat privately one day and ministerially the other. He or she cannot blur the differences by ignoring the fact that someone who is giving advice and is present in a meeting is taking income from undeclared outside sources. That cannot be allowed—we cannot go on like that. We cannot have groups in this building taking money from oppressive regimes without its being clear what their programme is. The Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, stated clearly in splendid words that lobbying would be the major scandal of the future unless we have clear and simple root-and-branch reforms now that make no compromises and leave no loopholes. That is what is called for and it is also our purpose.

I shall end now, Mr Robertson—it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship—as I understand that many Members wish to speak so that we can use the opportunity to ask the Government what they have done to honour the Prime Minister’s fine promise and when reforms will be introduced to ensure that we have a transparent system with a compulsory register.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn)—

[Paul Flynn]

Comrade.

[Robert Halfon]

I congratulate my honourable comrade on the Public Administration Committee on his remarks today. Underneath all the rhetoric from all parties, there is quite a lot of overlap. Although we need to be transparent and open, we should not necessarily see all lobbying as a sort of great conspiracy. I declare my interests, as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

In my view, there are three kinds of lobbying. The first, which has already been described, is constituents writing to us or contacting us on a range of issues. The second involves charities and pressure groups. Many of those charities have huge budgets for public relations and public affairs. Many also have former special advisers working for them who know the Government inside-out, and therefore have what might be described as privileged access. The third kind is the traditional lobbying being highlighted today, which involves private firms, trade unions and big public sector agencies, and the public affairs firms that they hire.

I am proud that in my constituency we have a large bingo club with 40,000 members, and I was only too pleased when, a couple of weeks ago, the Bingo Association came to lobby me about various taxation issues. I cannot see anything wrong with that; it is a good thing, because I want to support my incredibly popular bingo club. We should not condemn all lobbying as sinister and retrograde, because some of it can be used to inform us. Tonight, I have an Adjournment debate on university technical colleges, and e-mails and letters that I have received from all kinds of interest groups have helped me to prepare for it.

[Paul Flynn]

It should be clear to my hon. Friend that that is not part of our concern. I have tweeted him about his 40,000 bingo club members, and commiserated with him on the fact that such is his constituents’ despair over the future of the economy that they have all resorted to gambling.

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend’s wit has no bounds, which is why I enjoy sitting on the Select Committee with him so often.

I support groups and websites such as SpinWatch, the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency, the Sunlight Centre and Guido Fawkes, because the more openness and transparency the better, but this will be incredibly difficult. Let us say that there is a lobby company called Westminster Communications—I do not know if there is—[Interruption.] There is. Okay, let us call it Westminster X. If we say that that company has to lobby, there is nothing to prevent it rebranding itself as Widget Strategies Ltd and describing itself as a management consultancy, as opposed to a political one. How do we then register all the businesses that come to see us? Do we have a blanket diary entry and register everything? It is not as easy as it looks.

The case of Adam Werritty has been briefly mentioned. I do not think that that was a lobbying scandal; it was to do with the relationship between special advisers and Ministers. Sometimes the boundaries of special advisers are unclear. Under the previous Government there were Lord Levy and Alastair Campbell, who became a semi-civil servant. There is a lot of confusion, and that is why the Adam Werritty thing needed to happen. The Government need to make the role of special advisers much clearer, including how many there should be and what their duties are.

I agree 100% with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West—he is almost my hon. Friend—about the issue of revolving doors, or Ministers leaving Whitehall and getting jobs. We had an interesting Select Committee sitting with Ian Lang, whose committee—the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments—seems not to keep records of individuals whom it has advised not to take up Government jobs, or of individuals who have taken up jobs after leaving Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

We need to remember that, in essence, we politicians are all lobbyists. We go through lobbies and try to advocate causes, and nearly every one of us—if not all of us—was in one shape or form a lobbyist before we came into Parliament. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) campaigned for workers’ rights when he was working for a trade union; I, as a vicar, argued that my local authority was not doing the right thing by local youth services; others have campaigned for better policing, and so on. We are by nature lobbyists—advocates—trying to persuade people of a better cause. For a couple of years I was a paid lobbyist for the BBC, doing its lobbying in Brussels. I am proud of that work, because at the time Rupert Murdoch was saying that the BBC licence fee was illegal state aid, and that the BBC should be closed down. I am delighted that we won that battle in Brussels, and I believe that it is perfectly possible to be an entirely honourable lobbyist.

I remember when the Mental Health Bill was going through the House in 2007. As a Back-Bench member of the Bill Committee, I knew remarkably little about mental health and the specifics of legislation. If it had not been for a wide range of people who lobbied me and argued about elements of the Bill, I would not have been able to make as effective a contribution. In the end, I tabled the amendment that became the following provision in the Act:

“In this Act, references to appropriate medical treatment, in relation to a person suffering from mental disorder, are references to medical treatment which is appropriate in his case, taking into account the nature and degree of the mental disorder and all other circumstances of his case.”

To the ordinary eye—and, I suggest, to most MPs, unless they have a background in mental health—that seems a perfectly innocuous statement of what should be the case, but every single word of that provision was fiercely battled over, and rightly so, because of its effect on people who might be sectioned. It was not just mental health charities such as Mind and others that lobbied and provided advice; it was also pharmaceutical companies. If there is a list of evil people in the country, it starts with journalists, then politicians, and then lobbyists, and way at the far end are lobbyists for pharmaceutical companies, but my experience in that situation was that they provided invaluable advice. In the end, it was for me to decide the rights and wrongs and how I could best serve my constituents, but if people had not had such access to me, it would have been impossible for me to do a proper job.

[Paul Flynn]

The main opposition to any reform comes from those who wish to muddy the issue and suggest that we wish to hamstring some worthy body. The Prime Minister has given the definition of “secret corporate lobbying”; we should realise that that is the subject of this debate and the area in which reforms are long overdue.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend misunderstands me, I suspect. I do not seek to muddy reform; I want reform. I want a register, and I will suggest a couple of other things as well, but I think that we must be absolutely honest, and part of that involves honesty about the important role that good lobbying can play in the political process, particularly for Opposition Members. Ministers have a host of civil servants who can produce briefings and so on; Opposition Members simply do not have access to that much support. Often it is provided by organisations. If at any point a Member succumbs so completely to the blandishments of some organisation that they effectively become its subsidiary, they stop being a good parliamentary Member and constituency representative. That is the line that I want to draw.

We should also bear in mind that lobbying is a British tradition. It is because there was a lobby outside St Stephen’s chapel that the whole system arose. I remember clearly that when Paris lost its bid for the 2012 Olympics, Delanoë complained that the British had engaged in lobbying. I saw all too often in Brussels that although Britain was good at advocating its case, other countries were not, because they simply did not understand how to go about it properly.

Some industries are particularly lobbyacious—and, Hansard reporters, that is a word, because I have created it. Broadcasting is particularly lobbyacious, because so many elements of its work are determined by legislation. We must take special care to ensure a level playing field for everybody.

There are enormous problems, many of which have been referred to, including corrupt lobbying: offers of financial inducements, nice holidays, easy trips and so on. Some methods are directly corrupt and illegal, and the House should deal ferociously with Members who abuse in that direction. Sometimes Members would be best advised not to go to the meal or engage. The rules applying to this House are much stronger than those that apply to the other House. If one wanted to engage in dodgy lobbying, one would be far better advised to do so through the House of Lords—the House of patronage—rather than through the House of Commons. That is another reason why I support reforming the House of Lords to make it an elected second Chamber.

Another way in which it is probably much easier to do a dodgy deal is with civil servants rather than elected Members. There is far less openness; often even the names of people who make important decisions on tenders are not known to the public. Some countries have purposely selected individual Members of both Houses as being more pliable and biddable than others, and have enabled long-term relationships with them. Those relationships need close scrutiny.

What counts as a lobbyist is also a problem. I do not mean to say that we should not have a register; it is one reason why we should. The Prime Minister was a lobbyist before he came into Parliament, and most journalists advocate most of the time in one way or another, especially those with opinion columns. When my constituents set up an organisation to oppose the closure of the Treherbert baths or protect the minor injuries unit at Llwynypia, they are lobbyists. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw is absolutely right. If their space to lobby me were crowded out, I would be failing utterly in my job. Every single diplomat who works for the Foreign Office is also, in essence, a lobbyist. I often feel that they are sent abroad to eat for their country. It is important to recognise the advocacy role of what we do.

The first key thing is that there should be no paid advocacy. That is a rule of this House, but it is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. We need absolute transparency about funding and who is engaged in lobbying, and particularly about who meets any Minister or civil servant engaged in making key decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Phone Hacking

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I said earlier, we are looking at that specific issue. We have asked Ofcom and the Competition Commission to look at it, and we are going to hear what they have to say.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

In the cash for honours inquiry, the Met judged all suspects to be innocent until they were proved to be Labour. Does the Prime Minister agree that the best-trusted news in the country and the best investigative journalism comes from those broadcasters who already have a statutory duty to balance their news? Instead of having a half solution, would not the ultimate solution be to spread the obligation to provide balanced political reporting to all media?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a matter for the inquiry. I think there are difficulties here. The reason for the statutory regulation of television is that you are dealing with a previously limited spectrum that was a privilege to own and statutory regulation came with it. The reason for not having the statutory regulation of newspapers is that in a free society you should be free to set up a newspaper, to distribute opinions and information—[Interruption.] Even if it is the Morning Star, as someone said. It is important that we hold on to that. I want the newspapers to understand that neither the Government nor the Opposition want to leap into statutory regulation. That is not the intention; we want to improve on what we have now.