Business of the House
Paul Flynn Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend raises an issue, which I, if I had time available, would welcome a chance to debate. The announcement before Christmas of additional funding for school places was important and welcome. He will know that since 2011 Harrow has been allocated a total of £36 million for new school places and has also benefited from £34 million of investment through the targeted basic need programme, which will fund the expansion of 15 schools by September 2015.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
When can we have a debate to explain to former US Defence Secretary Gates that having a full spectrum of military cover has cost us grievously in the loss of more than 600 of our brave soldiers in two recent avoidable wars? Furthermore, being the fourth highest spender on defence in the world and punching above our weight means that we spend beyond our means and die beyond our responsibilities.
Mr Lansley
If we had such an opportunity with the former US Defence Secretary, he would understand that we, like many across the world, have had to take tough decisions on defence spending. However, he would acknowledge that, as a consequence of the decisions this Government have made and the value for money that we are achieving not least in procurement, we have closed that enormous black hole in commitments against resources that our Ministry of Defence had. That has enabled us to plan to spend £160 billion on equipment over the next decade, giving us a formidable range of cutting-edge capabilities. As for the Navy, the new aircraft carrier is almost complete, and the Type 45 destroyers, Type 26 frigates and seven new Astute class submarines are coming into base, which demonstrates that we have the best trained and equipped armed forces outside the United States.
Business of the House
Paul Flynn Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
If the hon. Lady reads what I said, I think she will find that I was supporting the principle of tariff-based funding, which is an activity-based funding scheme. In that sense, NHS England, independently, is responsible for allocating resources to clinical commissioning groups and the mandate to it is clear: it should do that according to the principle of equal access for equal need.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
City analysts from Liberum Capital have described the Hinkley Point nuclear power station deal as “economically insane” for offering a price for electricity at double the going rate, index linked and guaranteed for 35 years, at the cost of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. Next week, there will be a decision on whether an investigation takes place in Europe—that would delay the power station for at least 18 months. So is it not crucial that next week Parliament decides its view on this astonishing rip-off for taxpayers?
Mr Lansley
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change came to this Dispatch Box and made a statement announcing the Hinkley Point deal. The hon. Gentleman should not construe the fact that the European Commission looks at it as anything to be remarked upon; it was inevitable and a matter of necessity that it would do so. It was always anticipated that that would happen.
Mr Speaker
I think we will take points of order after the Select Committee statement. That would be seemly, and I am sure that Members will be patient enough to wait for that opportunity.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Paul Flynn Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Allen
My hon. Friend describes my experience, too, as a fellow Select Committee Chair. We have been compressed in our consideration throughout the House. The Select Committee structure is meant to do a job for Members, so that we can discuss the issues properly under a proper programme motion. His Select Committee has been squeezed by the programme motion and by the Government’s haste at the wrong end of the process, and that means that we do not consider the Bill properly. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and Members throughout the House who are members of my Select Committee came back when the House was in recess to take evidence. I ask the Leader of the House: is that the way the Government want to be seen to be conducting the business and affairs of the House? That is why adequate time is needed, and the programme motion should provide that.
Just this morning, ahead of this debate, I as Chair of the relevant Select Committee and the Electoral Commission convened a meeting, which was open to all Members, to discuss the Bill. One idea throughout the consideration came from the commission: if only we had had a little more time. Instead of being equivocal—perhaps this will work; perhaps it will not. Let us try it; let us have an open mind—the Electoral Commission could have been properly consulted. My Select Committee interviewed the commission, and I quote from our report:
“It is extraordinary that the Government did not consult the Board and Accounting Officer of the Electoral Commission about the change it is making to the Commission's role. We note also that the Commission has concerns about its ability to identify cases of potential non-compliance”.
That would impact on every Member of Parliament. What if we have a meeting attended by the League Against Cruel Sports and the Countryside Alliance and they start picking a fight with each other and complaining about each other on legal grounds? If we are going to ask the Electoral Commission all of a sudden to start policing that, we should at least have the good grace to consult it so that it can pick holes in the measure, we can get it right and, even with bad legislation, make it halfway workable. As this Bill leaves this House, we are still asking fundamental questions about whether it can be useful in practice or whether it is a minefield.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend recall that one of the most surprising bits of information we have heard as a Committee is that under the previous Government, 75 Bills went through all the stages in the House, including Royal Assent, and were never enforced. Is it his view that this Bill is so awful and impractical that even if it goes go through all its stages it will be unenforceable?
Mr Allen
I will not answer my hon. Friend’s question because I would incur your wrath, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, were we able to debate under a proper programme motion, my hon. Friend could make those important points at some length.
Leaving aside the Electoral Commission, the bodies that will be hurt most by any legislation of this sort were also not consulted. It takes a truly heroic effort in this place to get 10,000-odd charities up in arms. Members have been contacted by many such organisations over the past weeks and months, and I am sure that even today they will have received lengthy protests from key organisations such as the Royal British Legion and Oxfam who are saying, “We’ve not had our say. We feel we’re being railroaded.” It is not the role of Parliament to push people and push legislation through without a proper case being made by the Government.
Part 2 is the most sensitive part of the Bill, and if this programme motion is passed we may come to it tomorrow, but most of the bodies and people who will be most affected by it feel that the whole of part 2 should be withdrawn. If there had been a Cabinet reshuffle at the higher levels perhaps an incoming Leader of the House might have said, “I’m blowed if I’m going to be hung with this for the next two months,” and might have scrapped it. We are going to soldier on and try to make the best of it, however, but we can only make the best of it if we have the time to scrutinise properly some of the Bill’s key issues.
People outside this House do not want us to play games. This is the first time in my political life that I have asked colleagues not to support a programme motion. I am generally a great advocate of programme motions, but I oppose this programme motion because of what charity after charity, and voluntary sector organisation after voluntary sector organisation, and third sector organisation after third sector organisation, are saying. Civil Society says in its briefing about the programming:
“There has been a lack of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation with organisations that might be affected by the change which is in stark opposition to the supposed purpose of the Bill which is to increase transparency and oversight”,
not reduce it.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Paul Flynn Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jenkin
I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but it is not generally asserted that, for example, correspondence between him representing his constituents and a Minister is privileged, because it would be difficult to prove that that constituted proceedings in Parliament. I do not think, therefore, that we can seek to extend parliamentary privilege in the Bill. What we do as our job to represent our constituents is clearly not intended to be included in the regulation of lobbying. It would be intolerable if Members of Parliament had to register as lobbyists in order to represent their constituents, or indeed represent any other interests. I will return to that point later, if my right hon. Friend will forgive me.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman will recall that in the previous Parliament there was concern about the way that certain Members were behaving, and two were summoned to the Committee. One was receiving £75,000 to represent a company; the other was receiving £105,000. They received those sums entirely to lobby on behalf of a commercial organisation. One of their excuses was, “The organisation has employees in my constituency.” But surely it is the core job of an MP to lobby for his constituents, and if MPs are offered money to do it, that should be seen for what it is, which is a bung, an inducement or a bribe.
Mr Jenkin
I recognise the sentiment the hon. Gentleman expresses, and I share his outrage at any abuse that he suggests took place, but we have our own rules in this House. We adjudicate on these matters, and in fact we apply very harsh terms to people we believe to be guilty of paid advocacy. For many decades, since 1945 or even earlier, paid advocacy has been utterly abhorrent to this House. No longer do we have MPs sitting in the railway interest, as they did during the 19th century. The important distinction here is that we regulate that from within this House, as proceedings of this House. We do not need or require the courts to interfere in those matters. I do not think we are providing any leniency to Members that the courts would not also afford. Indeed, it might be far harder to obtain a prosecution in court for a matter such as that than to create in this House the right atmosphere of discipline and self-discipline that we expect from all hon. Members.
Paul Flynn
May I raise with my hon. Friend a question that he himself has raised? There is a difference between this House and the other House. There was a recent investigation into the conduct of a Member of the House of Lords who was behaving in a way that would be condemned in this place as reprehensible, but the Lords have not come to a final conclusion. It relates to a Lord who was campaigning and lobbying on behalf of the Cayman Islands. The excuse given was that there is a difference between the two Houses because Members of the House of Lords are not paid and so are entitled to go around making money by hiring themselves out to the highest bidder. Surely that is a matter of public scandal that must be addressed.
Mr Thomas
If my hon. Friend, who is an expert on these questions, will bear with me, I will come later to some of the issues relating to the House of Lords and the extent to which the Bill affects the performance of its Members.
I accept that it was probably not the intention of the Leader of the House that Members of Parliament should be affected in the way that I and other Members who have intervened have described and that that was a result of the Bill being so badly rushed. Had Members on both sides of the House not raised concerns, these sensible amendments would not have been put forward by the Government.
As I indicated, I want to ask a couple of questions about the impact of the Government’s amendments and whether any lessons have been learnt from the process by which the offending paragraphs ended up in the Bill. As several Members made clear on Second Reading, and as the standards committee spelled out, there was a series of concerns about the inclusion of paragraphs 1 and 2 to schedule 1 and their impact on parliamentary privilege. The Committee’s helpful report noted the evidence that had been received by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in March this year. The evidence from Lord Judge underlined the risk of including specific exemptions for MPs in this, or indeed any, Bill. It also underlined the concern that future legislation relating to Members without such an exemption might inadvertently affect parliamentary privilege.
Did the Leader of the House consider that report from the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, and if not, why not? Did he take any advice on the inclusion of those paragraphs before signing them off and presenting the Bill to Parliament? Does he now accept that pre-legislative scrutiny, and perhaps a further period of public consultation with the industry and its stakeholders, might have prevented such a considerable error?
A further concern the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege highlighted relates to the inclusion of a definition of who is resident in an MP’s constituency using the 1983 Act’s description of who can and cannot vote.
Mr Speaker
Has the right hon. Gentleman finished? He has. I thank him and call Mr Paul Flynn.
Paul Flynn
It is a rare occasion when one feels that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has been disappointingly brief. [Laughter.] I cannot remember any similar occasion.
I rise with a sense of excitement about the Bill because anyone who speaks to it will go down in parliamentary history as partaking in one of the worst Bills that has ever appeared before the House. Students of the future will study this with amazement—to think that a Bill of this kind could ever be introduced. Speaking to the amendments is rather like trying to chromium-plate a pile of horse dung, imagining that we could improve it in any way.
I feel sympathetic, as was said from the Front Bench, towards the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who as the responsible Minister was given the gloomy task of introducing this Bill to our Select Committee in July, on the last day before we went off for the summer recess. She had a torrid time, trying to defend the indefensible. I said that I was sympathetic to her, given that she was sitting there, garlanded with an albatross of nonsense. I am delighted to know that she has given up and gone to spend more time with the truth, having escaped from the Front Bench. I wish her well in her future career; it could not have got worse. I am sure that when she was assailed by this blizzard of e-mails—not from just 10 or 20 charities, but from hundreds—she realised how damaging the Bill was. These amendments would go some way to improving it.
As was said earlier, we should see the wheeze. Of course no hon. Member behaves badly; nothing done in this House or the other place would be dishonourable. The whole purpose behind the Bill and why it was introduced was to address hints of a scandal. It was not yet established, but there was a fear that a scandal had taken place, involving the country of Fiji. The matter has still not been settled, but there was also an equally minor scandal involving a Member of the other place with respect to the Cayman Islands.
Paul Flynn
I would not want to deny the hon. Gentleman—a possible future Deputy Speaker of the House—that privilege. I believe that he is one of the candidates. It is fascinating to get these invitations. One from an hon. Lady said, “Vote for me and you won’t have to put up with me on the Benches. I will be silenced.” Therefore, we are voting for the one we most want to silence as a Deputy Speaker and we think is most loathsome. It is a hard task, because we have a rich choice.
We were waiting for the Bill. We were promised it on 10 March 2010. This was going to be the great crusading Parliament against lobbying. This was going to be the new scandal. Nothing happened: comatose for nearly three years. Suddenly there was a scandal on the way and the Government decided to act. The Bill was conceived in haste. It was written in fear and in malice. The legislative process has been conducted with incompetence. These modest amendments will make some improvements but it will be one of the many Bills that will go through the House. We are very poor at legislating.
We should look at the history. During the 13 years of the Labour Government, 75 Bills went through all their stages and were never put into practice. A permanent secretary has that figure. We have this disease. If we see a problem, what do we do? Dogs bark, children cry, politicians legislate. This is a piece of utterly futile legislation. It does not deal with the problem. It misses 97% of the problem but it takes a spiteful side-swipe at bodies that are blameless such as charities and trade unions. The Government are trying to save corporate lobbyists, who are doing the greatest damage, from the bureaucracy, and they have hit out at people who are doing no damage whatever. They are reducing bureaucracy for one and increasing needlessly bureaucracy for the other. This is an awful Bill.
Mr Lansley
As has been demonstrated, the effect of new clause 7 and the other amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) would be to bring into the register of lobbyists not just consultant lobbyists but all those who are in-house lobbyists. She knows that the approach we have taken is not to seek to create a register of everyone who engages in lobbying, which would be a very long list, but to ensure that the details of the meetings of the key decision makers—Ministers and permanent secretaries—are published and by extension we understand who is lobbying whom as far as the key decision makers are concerned. She rather shot her own fox by talking about the big six energy firms. The reason that earlier this week The Independent was able to run the story about the number of times that Ministers have met representatives of the big six energy firms is that we as a Government for the first time have published details of Ministers’ diaries. Putting the names of the big six energy firms in a register of lobbyists adds no information: we know who they are; we know on whose behalf they are lobbying; and we now know—as a result of this Government, not the previous Government—when they are meeting the key decision makers. That is clear. In this Bill we are extending transparency and addressing the key failing, and we are doing so not through having a large list of the kind the Opposition amendments would create.
New clause 7 proposes exceptions to the definition of those who are treated as consultant lobbyists. It may be of comfort to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and the Opposition that there are some sensible exclusions from their concept of lobbying, but all those sensible exclusions are already provided for in the Bill. Some of the proposed exclusions are less sensible, however. In their explanation for amendment 70, the Opposition say that they seek to remove the reasonable requirement that consultant lobbyists must be VAT-registered, which is aimed at protecting small businesses engaged in consultant lobbying, and to insert in its place a requirement that the lobbyist be a
“sole trader or company, or employee of such a person”.
The amendment therefore excludes charities, partnerships and any other type of body a lobbyist might be. The Opposition would therefore reduce the effectiveness of the register in relation to consultant lobbyists.
The Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee said that we took a long time in responding to its report. That was because it was arguing for this large-scale regulatory structure for lobbying. We looked carefully over a substantial period of time at whether satisfactory definitions could be achieved, and they cannot. We would end up with very large-scale registers that tell us very little that is new.
Opposition amendments 73 to 76 and 83 would alter the definition in clause 2 with the intention of extending the scope of the register to those who lobby each of the many categories of people, including special advisers, senior civil servants, Members of either House of Parliament, parliamentary staff and non-departmental public bodies.
Amendment 97, tabled by members of the Select Committee, offered a more limited expansion of the scope, aimed at including special advisers, the senior civil service and, in the case of amendment 98, parliamentarians. Amendment 116, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), would extend the scope to special advisers.
The register is designed to complement the existing Government transparency regime whereby Ministers and permanent secretaries proactively publish details of their meetings with external organisations. It is intended to focus on communications with the key decisions makers in Government, not on the large-scale surrounds of people who are intermediaries. There is a question as to the value of increasing the scope of the ministerial transparency regime. Is there really value in collecting and publishing data on every meeting of every one of almost 5,000 senior civil servants?
Amendment 71 would add the term “electronic” to the concept of written communications. I can assure the House that such communications—including a fax, an e-mail, a text message, and even a personal tweet or BlackBerry Messenger conversation—are already currently captured by the definition of communications.
Turning to European legislation, amendment 72 would not be effective in the terms in which it is drafted. We do not make European legislation, but lobbying in relation to it or lobbying the policy of the Government in relation to it would be captured.
There is one Government amendment in this group: amendment 30. It provides that a person does not fall within the scope of the definition of consultant lobbyist if they carry out a mainly non-lobbying business and any consultant lobbying communication they make is incidental to those activities. Paragraph 3(2) of schedule 1 defines non-lobbying activities as any activities other than the making of communications about policy, legislation or contracts and tenders and so forth to any Executive, including the UK Government, the devolved Administrations, UK local government, any national Government, and any institution of the EU. This amendment will clarify that the reference to the lobbying of the Northern Ireland Executive in paragraph 3 includes the lobbying both of Ministers and their Departments. When the time comes, I shall wish to move that amendment on behalf of the Government, but I now give the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central a moment to respond.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Paul Flynn Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
It is a great pleasure to get to part 3 under your chairmanship, Ms Primarolo. I shall speak to clause stand part as well as to all the amendments in the group. It is totally inadequate that we are discussing part 3 of this hotch-potch of a Bill without having seen the impact assessment for part 3 or any results from the curtailed consultation that was put in place at the start of the process.
It is worth putting the amendments into context. The past three days and the hundreds of e-mails that all Members have received from their constituents show how much of a dog’s breakfast the Bill is. It is in good company, following the hotch-potch of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill and the total shambles that the House witnessed during the passage of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill. Part 3 of the Bill before us provides wide-ranging new powers to the certification officer on trade union membership lists, but no one, including officials of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the discussion paper, the explanatory notes, the trade unions and, I bet, even the Minister can tell the Committee what problem the Bill is trying to resolve.
The TUC stated in its evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee:
“As with part two we are unable to discern the problem that this part of the Bill is meant to remedy.”
Nigel Stanley from the TUC went on to say:
“We have asked BIS, the certification officer and ACAS through freedom of information requests whether they have received or made representations that we need to amend current powers to regulate union membership . . . We cannot find any demand for part 3.”
The only justification for part 3 has been the publicly stated view that it came out of a high-level meeting between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. What a contribution and combination that is. I wonder whether Lynton Crosby was in the room at the time.
Without any rationale for the Bill coming from the Government, perhaps we have to look for our own rationale. The reason given for the Bill by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in its discussion paper is the potential for trade union activity to affect people’s daily lives. It says:
“The general public should be confident that voting papers and other communications are reaching union members so that they have the opportunity to participate”.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is aware, as we all are, of the clamour for at least 20 years for the reform of lobbying practices. Can he think of any demand for part 3? Is it not sensible to judge that this is merely an afterthought—a spiteful swipe at the trade union movement—in order to distract from the fact that the Bill does not address 95% of commercial corporate lobbyists?
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend is right. Parts 1 and 2 have been shown over the past few days to be utterly deficient. There is no evidence, no drive, no remedy to be pursued, no problem to be resolved that would justify part 3. There is legislation in place, which I shall come on to later, which shows that membership lists from trade unions are heavily regulated already. Part 3 is merely a legislative burden on the trade unions timed to deflect attention, as my hon. Friend says, from other parts of the Bill that are completely deficient.
Ian Murray
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. As Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, he has done some wonderful work on the Bill, and at very short notice. It is a great credit not only to him and the Committee’s staff, but to the other Members who serve on it. He has demonstrated how the Government operate. If one wanted to put something through that was ideologically driven but did not want it to be scrutinised, one would do as the Government have done with this Bill.
Paul Flynn
Was not my hon. Friend astonished by the fact that, while 11 Conservative MPs last night voted against the low, mean attack on charities, not a single Lib Dem MP did so? Why does he think they are so enthusiastic to embrace their own extinction?
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend tempts me to use unparliamentary language, but I will not go down that route. It is a fact that last night every single Lib Dem Member went into the Lobby with the Government to vote for part 2 and that it was only Conservative rebels who decided not to put up with the Bill. I think that is unfortunate.
Ian Lavery
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and although we have only started to scratch the surface, the proposal is getting worse by the minute.
Paul Flynn
I am following my hon. Friend’s speech with interest. I share his puzzlement, but there might be a plausible explanation of why the role is being created. We know that great hordes of Tory and Lib Dem Members will be unemployed after the 2015 election, so this might well be a job creation programme to allow them to become assurers.
Ian Lavery
I understand my hon. Friend’s point, although he puts it somewhat differently than I would.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) referred to how the appointment of a duly appointed assurer could be terminated. Amendment 119 is simple. Under proposed new section 24ZC(3) an assurer’s appointment can be terminated if
“(a) a resolution has been passed at a general meeting of the trade union appointing somebody else instead or providing expressly that the person is not to be re-appointed”—
whatever that means—or
“(b) the person has given notice to the union in writing of the person’s unwillingness to be re-appointed”
or
“(c) the person is not qualified for the appointment in accordance with section 24ZB”.
If he is not qualified, how can he be sacked? He should not have the job in the first place. This is an outrage. It just needs some common sense to row back from these provisions.
Jo Swinson
I welcome the debate on clause 37 and the amendments and I shall respond to some of the remarks hon. Members have made. Clause 37 gives credibility to the maintenance of trade union membership registers to members, employers and the wider public.
As hon. Members know, unions are already required to report on their financial affairs. They need to appoint an auditor, which gives the accounts authority. When a large union submits its membership on its certificate, the Bill provides the same kind of independent assurance that is provided in financial affairs. For the larger unions, that assurance needs to be independent if it is to be credible, which is why trade unions of more than 10,000 members must appoint a qualified independent person to provide the membership audit certificate, which will state whether, in the assurer’s opinion, the union’s systems are satisfactory in relation to compliance with the duties to maintain an accurate register—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Sheffield (Angela Smith) wants to intervene, I am happy for her to do so—[Interruption.] I apologise if I did not get the hon. Lady’s exact constituency name quite right. I should have referred to her as the Member for Barnsley and Penistone or whatever. She had a slightly different constituency in the previous Parliament.
The clause provides an order-making power for the Secretary of State to define who may act as an assurer. Somebody cannot act as an assurer if the union has grounds to believe they would not act competently, or that their independence might be called into question. For example, union officers or employers may not act as an assurer. In practice, the assurer will need to be somebody who can understand how records are stored, collected and updated, so that they can provide the audit certificate. They might want to know how the union collects new member data and how members are reminded to keep their details up to date—the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) described how a union with which she had been involved did that regularly. The assurer might also want to know how unions update the register once changes are notified.
Unions will need to set out in their rules the process for appointing and removing an assurer. We have provided flexibility for the union, but certain provisions will apply regardless. An assurer may be removed by resolution, or be automatically re-appointed unless one of various specified conditions are met. However, it will always be up to the union to have the final say—it can appoint or remove an assurer by resolution.
Paul Flynn
Before the hon. Lady gets into the detail, will she answer the question that has been asked again and again in the debate? Why is there a need for assurers? As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has said, the measure is a solution looking for a problem. What is the problem?
Jo Swinson
That was discussed at length in the debate on the previous group of amendments and I refer the hon. Gentleman to my remarks in that debate. Clearly, we want to ensure that there is confidence in the names and addresses that trade unions use for the membership lists. There is agreement on both sides of the Committee that it is important that membership lists are accurate and up to date. That is an existing responsibility and duty on unions. The membership audit certificate will provide confidence in the list. It is much more proportionate for smaller unions, for which it is much easier to keep details up to date—smaller unions have fewer than 10,000 members, whereas some of the larger unions have more than 1 million members—to provide an assurance themselves. However, to have the credibility required for the larger unions, we must have that independence, which is where the assurer comes in.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Paul Flynn Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Thurso
I remember having very happy intercourse with the right hon. Gentleman when he was at the Dispatch Box, so I will maintain my benign view and wait to see the outcome before making any such decisions.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the status quo is perfection when, in recent years, groups such as the Countryside Alliance and individuals such as Lord Ashcroft have, between elections, targeted huge resources in a few marginal constituencies to affect the result of the vote? Should not that abuse be reformed?
John Thurso
My understanding is that that is precisely what clause 26 intends to do, and I sincerely hope it succeeds.
Wayne David
I respectfully remind the Minister that the Bill was literally drafted on the back of an envelope in a couple of days. All we are asking is that the Government give us a draft amendment, subject to all the caveats that they want to put in about legal advice and so on, so that we have, in writing, the Government’s commitment. Otherwise many people will think that these are simply hollow words from the Government.
Paul Flynn
Does my hon. Friend think that the Government are advertising their incompetence by presenting us with some promise that, on Report, they will change the Bill, while suggesting that we all waste our time today dealing with a Bill that might be very different on Report? Why on earth do the Government not try to amend the Bill now?
Wayne David
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Clause 26 and schedule 3 are absolutely central to the Bill because everything follows on from them. If the Government do not get this right and do not sort out what they are going to do here, everything that follows, frankly, does not make much sense.
Mr Davis
The hon. Gentleman invites me to commit political suicide by confessing that I have used 38 Degrees in some of my campaigns. Sometimes I am for, and sometimes I am against. The organisation is part of the modern mechanism, and it is not the only one. It was, after all, based on similar organisations in America and Australia. That is the way politics is going and, frankly, my constituents should judge me on whether I voted for the proposed Syrian war. They should judge me on whether I voted for tuition fees and on how I voted on this, that or the other measure.
If I may, I shall disagree with the author of new clause 4, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, on one point. He said that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) was wrong to claim that it was an attempt to protect the Liberal party from the National Union of Students, but I was told by a member of the Liberal party that that is exactly what it was intended for. The raw truth is that, in our trade, we should be willing to stand by our principles and our aims, and by what we actually do. We should live or die by that, in political terms.
I want to make one more point, and I shall make it directly to the Minister on the Front Bench. As I have said, this section of the Bill deals with a constitutional matter and goes to the heart of free speech in our society. Undertakings have been given by those on the Front Bench—entirely in good faith, I imagine. The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has been teased about tabling a manuscript amendment, because that is not the way to do it. We should do it properly, with proper legal advice and taking a wide range of contributions from the very people who will be affected. What the Government should have done before the Bill was presented to the House should be done now. If it is not done now, and if what is presented on Report is unacceptable, it will probably still get through, although I shall vote against it.
Mr Davis
I am on almost my last line, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not.
The Bill would probably still get through in those circumstances, but it is probable that the House of Lords, whose primary function is to act as a defender of our constitutional rights, would strip out the whole central section of the Bill. That is what it ought to do, and that is what it will do if the Government do not get the next stage right.
Stephen McPartland
The hon. Gentleman will be surprised to learn that I listened closely to his speech on Second Reading, and I am aware that he used to work for Oxfam. He will know better than I that many people in Oxfam engage in the activities that we are discussing. Indeed, he said in his speech that he talked to legal experts about the issue. Activities of that type of are taking place at present.
Paul Flynn
The hon. Gentleman said that he had been encouraged to speak. Presumably, he was encouraged to do so by the Whips. Did the Whips explain to him that part 2, which was bound to incite the rage of charities all over the country, was in fact a smokescreen, which the Government will get rid of on Report? The whole point of it is for us to talk about this issue, and not about the great scandal of corporate lobbying, which the Government have not addressed in the Bill.
Stephen McPartland
When I said that I had been encouraged to speak, I meant that I had been encouraged to speak by the contributions that had been made in the Chamber. If the hon. Gentleman took a moment to look at my voting record, he would realise that when the Whips encourage me to speak, it is often with the aim of discouraging me from speaking, because I spend a bit of time in the same Lobby as the hon. Gentleman.
John Cryer
I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the reasons I mentioned Hope not Hate is that it is a classic example of an organisation that conducts not only national but local campaigns in specific constituencies, boroughs and districts. According to Hope not Hate, with which I and many Members from all parties have done a lot of work in the past, its spending in the run-up to the next election will be cut by 70%. It also calculates, accurately, that its limit per constituency over the same period will be about £9,000. That will have a material effect on anti-racist campaigning in the run-up to the next election. As I have said, Hope not Hate campaigns with all democratic parties, not just one or two.
I cannot help thinking that part 2 is not entirely divorced from the fact that one or two Liberal Democrat MPs will be facing potentially strenuous campaigns by the National Union of Students in the run-up to the next election. One Member who springs to mind is the Deputy Prime Minister. For those who do not know Sheffield that well, I point out that his constituency is surrounded by a sea of student accommodation for a large university. I suspect that the Deputy Prime Minister is a little bit worried that the student voices that were sympathetic to the Liberal Democrats at the last election will now be saying, “Well, hang on a minute: the leader of the Liberal Democratic party stood on a specific pledge of not raising tuition fees, but he went back on it and voted for, and actually helped introduce, legislation that tripled tuition fees.” I do not think that that was a million miles away from his mind when he was considering part 2 of this Bill, and I think that is why it is receiving enthusiastic support from not all but certain Liberal Democrat Members.
I will finish with a couple of quotes that successfully set out the problem with part 2. First, the Royal British Legion, which is not particularly known for being a wild-eyed, left-wing organisation of agitators, has said—Members have probably seen the briefing paper—that the definition of “for election purposes” is “far too broad”.
Secondly, Karl Wilding from the NCVO, which my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) mentioned earlier, said only a couple of weeks ago:
“The Bill takes us from a situation in which everyone understands the rules on what charities can do and considers them reasonable, into a position where no one has any idea what the rules are, but could nevertheless face criminal prosecution for getting them wrong. This is what happens when legislation is rushed through with no consultation.”
I rest my case.
Paul Flynn
I am grateful, Mr Sheridan, to be called to speak in this debate for the first time in three days. That might have something to do with the fact that by the time I get fully to my feet the selected speaker is about to end their first sentence.
I am very glad that I am at this historic event, because I am sure that one day someone will write a book called “The Worst Legislative Atrocities”, which will of course include the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. It will also include the Regulatory Reform Act 2001—initially a Bill so incomprehensible that in 2004 another Bill had to be introduced to explain what it meant. It will include many of the 75 Bills introduced by the previous Government that went through all their stages but, sadly, were never implemented. After all the efforts made by Parliament, in this House and the other place, to progress those Bills, they never went through. I believe that this mean, miserable Bill will also be seen as one of those Bills that demean the House and demean politics.
Dr Francis
I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I have just come from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair. I congratulate the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on the great work that it has done; my hon. Friend is a member and its Chair is in his place. My Committee was seriously critical of the Government’s refusal to allow any pre-legislative scrutiny. One of the points made was that this has been a terrible waste of human resources—Members and staff alike.
Paul Flynn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
We are engaged in a comedy, a Machiavellian game where the Government are saying, “We are going to put this right. We are taking things out of the Bill, but not until October.” In the meantime, we can ventilate here and grind the air with our words, but it is all to no avail because the Government have deliberately put the charities provision in part 2 in order to withdraw it at a later stage. They know about all the e-mails that are coming through. They know that all that indignation and anger will be ventilated here and we will ignore the main lacuna in the Bill regarding the big scandal identified by the Prime Minister that he said was certain to come. We remember his words: “Everyone knows what I’m talking about.”
This is about lobbying. We know how it works—the lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in the ear, the ex-Ministers and ex-advisers for hire, helping big business to find the right way to get its way in the Conservative party. The Conservatives say, “We believe in competition, not crony capitalism.” Oh no they don’t. The crony capitalism endemic in the soul of the party is shown in the fact that those who have the deepest pockets can get the access and the influence. That is what is in the party and that is what it has failed to address. We have been taken in. All the attention on this Bill is focused on the attacks on lobbying by charities. Who has said that the main scandal in future will be the dreadful activities of the Royal British Legion, Save the Children and Oxfam? It is a non-issue that the Government have inserted in an attempt to distract us from the main problem with the Bill.
In the previous Parliament, I had the advantage of serving on the Committee that dealt with lobbying. Sadly, the report that we put out in 2005 was not acted on. In all the time since then, we have had terrible examples of the abuse of our Parliament and our system by lobbyists. When are we going to have a look at what happened with the previous Defence Secretary, who acquired absolution when he resigned from his job? We did not have an inquiry into the ministerial adviser who also resigned. We did not have any exposure of what Mr Adam Werritty was doing. What was he up to? Who employed him?
The Temporary Chairman (Jim Sheridan)
Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman has waited a long time to speak in this debate, but it would be helpful if he could limit his contribution to clause 26.
Paul Flynn
I was speaking to the clause and amendment 47, which is a sensible way of considering the Bill. I might be tempted to go into a Second Reading speech, which I should not do. I believe that if we continue to address a non-issue in the Bill, we will intensify the lack of trust in this Committee and this Chamber. That issue is what the Prime Minister spoke so eloquently about before he was elected.
We are failing to do our job as members of the Committee, and handing over a mess of a Bill to the other House to correct and knock into shape. I appeal to the Minister to tell us in his winding-up speech what he will do on Report. Are we wasting our time attacking a non-problem in the Bill? Are we doing what he wants us to do, which is catch the minnows in the shallow waters while the great big salmon swim by unhindered?
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I have listened carefully to a number of contributions, and genuine concerns have been expressed. I do a huge amount of work with Mind and Rethink on mental health, and with my 100% support and advice, in the run-up to the next general election they will be setting a number of challenges for the main political parties about how people with mental health problems are treated. They will be seeking positive responses to those challenges, and I need categorical assurance from the Minister and those on the Front Benches that such activities will not be caught by the Bill before us.
Paul Flynn
Is it the message of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech that all the organisations and charities that are campaigning against the Bill should now intensify their campaigns until October in order to get something sensible from the Government on Report?
Tom Brake
Far be it from me to encourage or advise charities. I am sure they will continue to campaign if they feel there is a need, but my hope and expectation is that, once the NCVO and other organisations have seen the amendment that we intend to publish to address their concerns about a lack of clarity on the definitions, they will be satisfied. They might not be satisfied on other elements, but we will wait and see how they respond.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire would exclude the part 2 provisions from applying to elections to the Scottish Parliament without the assent of the Scottish Parliament. A number of Members have commented on the Bill’s impact on the different Administrations, so perhaps I need to clarify the issue. For the most part, the Bill is focused on UK parliamentary elections, and many of the provisions will have no effect on elections to the Scottish Parliament. Spending controls operate by regulated period, rather than by election, so seeking to exclude Scottish Parliament election spending in those areas where there are common rules would create an unworkable situation. For those reasons and others, these matters are reserved.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan would exclude charities registered in the Scottish charity register. The Electoral Commission has highlighted in its amendment briefing that, as a general point, it does not see a case for charities to be exempt from the rules regulating third parties, and the Government agree.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Paul Flynn Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House affirms its belief in the need for greater transparency in the lobbying industry and in British politics, and considers that there should be a universal register of all professional lobbyists backed by a code of conduct and sanctions, clear rules on third party campaigning, and real reform to get the big money out of politics; but declines to give a Second Reading to the Transparency of Lobbying, Third Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill because the proposals on lobbying cover only a tiny minority of the industry and will make lobbying less transparent, and the proposals on third party campaigning amount to a gag on charities and campaigners who have a democratic right to participate in important debates in the run up to elections; and strongly believes that the publication of such a Bill should have been preceded by a full process of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation with affected parties.
This is one of the worst Bills that I have seen any Government produce in a very long time. The last Bill this bad might even have been the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and the Leader of the House of Commons had his fingerprints all over that one, too. To be fair to him, he has found himself in a very difficult place. He has been landed with this risible and misconceived Bill and told to ram it through the Commons with unseemly haste in time for the next election.
I am told that it is not a Bill with many champions in government, where a history of previous employment in the lobbying industry is common. Nothing wrong with that, we might say, but it has created a notable reluctance on the part of all sorts of Ministers to touch the Bill with a bargepole, and this afternoon we all understand why. They have looked at the ceiling; they have looked at the floor; they have muttered among themselves in the hope that they would not be chosen to pilot the Bill through the House. The Leader of the House has drawn the short straw, along with the ever-willing Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith).
This is Bill is hurried, badly drafted and an agglomeration of the inadequate, the sinister and the partisan. From a Government who solemnly promised that they would fix our broken politics, the Bill will do the complete opposite.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Following the Government’s historic humiliation last Thursday, would it be beneficial to the House, the Government and the country if they spent the three weeks of recess studying the virtue of humility?
John Thurso
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I will not do that because it would not introduce pre-legislative scrutiny. There are three days to debate the Bill in Committee. There are some important big issues, but not a huge number of them, so we will probably have enough time to debate them in the days that are available.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
To be frank, I find this whole debate deeply worrying and depressing. We must remind ourselves that only a few years ago the House was brought into contempt in the eyes of the general public because of the expenses scandal. Even those of us who were completely clean were cast in the same light. For most of us, being elected was one of the proudest moments of our lives, but after the expenses scandal we almost had to apologise for being an MP. Then we legislated, we had an election, large numbers of new people came into the House, and we thought we had put the issue behind us. However, the Prime Minister was right to say that the next scandal would be about lobbying, which is why I welcomed the introduction of this Bill.
It was most depressing and angry-making—I was furious—when I saw the films of Members of Parliament offering their services to lobbyists for money, so when the Government said they were going to introduce legislation, I did not mind so much about the speed as I wanted it done quickly but effectively. It is, however, acutely depressing that this Bill does nothing of the sort. By excluding the vast proportion of lobbyists—the in-house lobbyists—we are making ourselves a laughing stock.
Let me follow on from what the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said. I have experience of in-house lobbyists. In my constituency, the third runway campaign, BAA, did not use external lobbyists; it used generally in-house lobbyists who not only lobbied but had passes to the Department for Transport. They were not bothered about meeting Ministers; they wanted to meet junior civil servants who wrote the projections of growth in passenger traffic and so on. That is how effective they were. When he was the Minister responsible for aviation, Chris Mullin asked how many BAA staff were in the Department for Transport on a daily basis. On the day he left, he was told that dozens of people had passes to come to the Department to influence people. I think that is corruption in any other terms, and the sort of thing we want to tackle.
The hon. Member for St Albans gave a brilliant speech and some examples of what goes on. Bizarrely, however, the Bill does not tackle that level of corruption but gags the very people from whom we want to hear. It even gags them during the general election period when they can be most influential. I find the proposed legislation not only contradictory but shameful, and it is important to listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said. We should stand back for the next period, listen and take evidence from organisations and individuals with experience in this field, and come to some agreement about the way forward.
If we cannot reach cross-party agreement on this issue, the Bill will not stand up in the long term. Once again the House will be brought into disrepute because we will be on the side of protecting lobbyists while trying to gag those who, as representatives of civil society, want their voice properly heard. I urge the Government to think again. Let us bring the parties together outside this Chamber and have another discussion about a proper way forward and a realistic timetable.
We can still meet a timetable that enacts legislation before the next general election, but we need the next couple of months for careful consideration and the proper involvement of all those who will be affected. The only people who seem to be involved at the moment are professional lobbying associations, not those I think actually deserve to be heard. If the Bill is passed in its current form, it will go down as a Bill drafted by a lobbyist for certain types of lobbyists, and they will be those lobbyists who try to maximise their profit.
Paul Flynn
I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech and am grateful to him for giving way. He expresses the anger felt on both sides of the House about the potentially corrupting activity of lobbyists over many years. Can he think of any demand from anyone who believes that the next scandal in the country will involve Oxfam, the British Legion and Save the Children?
John McDonnell
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Leader of the House would win the respect of the House if he took time to bring those organisations in to hear from them. He argues that gagging is not within the legislation. The impact of the legislation per se will not gag those organisations, but self-gagging will take place, because, as other hon. Members have said, people will not want to risk their charity’s or organisation’s funds on lawyers to advise them or to defend them when things go wrong. I therefore ask the Government to stand back, pause and consult, and introduce adequate legislation on which we can reach consensus. I am sure we can do it.
Part 3 of the Bill is about trade unions. The reality is that, since Mrs Thatcher’s day, the Conservatives have wanted to introduce legislation that bans trade unions, but have realised they could not get it through the House. They have therefore successively introduced legislation to ensure that they impede the activities of trade unions as best they can. That is why we have had extensive discussions on the technicalities of balloting, registrations and so on.
The measure is yet another way in which the Conservatives are trying to encumber trade unions with unnecessary bureaucracy to impede them in representing their members. Unions already have membership lists, which they must regularly update, because if they ballot for industrial action or on consultations, they must ensure the list are accurate—otherwise, they will be in court yet again, because employers can take legal action against them to prevent industrial action or any other form of action before strike action.
The legislation is therefore unnecessary, but I find it offensive because it applies only to trade unions. Why just trade unions? The Leader of the House’s argument is that trade unions influence public policy, but so does the CBI, the Institute of Directors and a large number of organisations that are not encompassed by the legislation. That betrays the real agenda: the measure is an attack on trade unions—yet again—by the Government.
I hope the Government see sense on that measure. All they will do is introduce another mechanism that sours the industrial relations climate in this country—another opportunity for litigation, meaning more time spent in the courts. That does not enhance the relationship between workers and employers, or the development of industrial, manufacturing or other economic policy by bringing people together; it simply increases antagonism. I believe it will therefore be counter-productive. I urge the Government to think again on the measure. It is petty, and they are introducing it now simply for short-term party advantage following debates before the summer recess. The measure will do nothing for the Government’s standing or for the relationship between trade unions and employers.
Finally, this is no way to legislate. I fully agree with much of what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House on that. This is no way to introduce a major constitutional reform. At the end of the day, if it is forced through by the Government, we will be back to amend it. However, while it is in place, it will undermine democratic engagement in this country across the piece.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is always interesting, although I am afraid I fundamentally disagree with him on this occasion.
In fact, this is an excellent, measured and balanced Bill. It is the right Bill to introduce at this time. Every aspect of it makes me admire the Lord Privy Seal more than I have ever done before. He is right, in part 1, to have come to this approach for regulating lobbyists, because lobbying is an important part of our constitutional settlement. It is a right of individuals to come here to lobby us. Indeed, the petitioning of the Crown is a specific right in the Bill of Rights. It is why Parliament was assembled in the first place: people were able to petition for redress of grievance. Anything done to regulate or control lobbying has to be done with exceptional care and thoughtfulness, and to be as minimalist as possible while maintaining the proprieties we seek to achieve.
Paul Flynn
One of the most reliable and enthusiastic lobbyists in the country has had 53 meetings with Ministers in this Parliament, including 35 meetings with members of the Cabinet, to lobby for some sensible causes, some eccentric causes and some barmy causes. Should we not put this most influential lobbyist, Prince Charles, into the orbit of the Bill?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
We are so fortunate to have a Prince of Wales who is able to train properly for the job he will have as our sovereign in due course, and to have access to Ministers. Of course, that should be confidential. Compared to some princes of Wales we have had in the past, how fortunate—how blessed—is this nation to have one who does his duty so diligently? I am glad that he does, and I think we can admire His Royal Highness for that—almost as much as we admire the Lord Privy Seal.
Natascha Engel
I do not see the relevance of 38 Degrees not turning up to a briefing, which would almost certainly have been largely pointless as the Bill would gag the activities that 38 Degrees legitimately wants to undertake in the run-up to a general election.
Paul Flynn
Does my hon. Friend think that there might well be a Machiavellian motive in the Government drafting the Bill as they have, which has meant that the great majority of the speeches today have been about the non-existent excesses of charities or trade unions, and that we have neglected the fact that the Bill woefully fails to address the terrible excesses of lobbyists?
Natascha Engel
That is exactly right and it is why the debate today has been a missed opportunity. We would all like to do something quickly about curbing the excesses of the wrong kind of lobbying, but the Bill captures the right sort of lobbying—exactly the sort that we as politicians should encourage. We want people to influence the way that we make decisions because it is their democratic right to do so, and those are not the sort of people that we want to criminalise.
It is on trade unions that I have the greatest problems. In the run-up to the 2005 general election I worked as the trade union liaison officer for the Labour party, and straight after the general election I helped to co-ordinate the last round of political fund ballots, so I know from personal experience just how heavily regulated trade union political activity and financial matters are. They are extremely heavily regulated. Membership records are up to date. Trade unions must have up-to-date membership records; otherwise they would be cutting down their own income. When they ballot members for strike action, they need to know who those members are and where they live, and when they want them to participate in internal elections, it is in their own interest that their membership records are up to date. They are also kept up to date by law.
Trade unions are democratic and accountable institutions. The Leader of the House implied that trade unions are somehow unaccountable institutions. That is absolutely not so. Any trade union member has the right to opt out of paying into a political fund. Members may choose not to pay the political levy. Every 10 years they are balloted about whether they want a political fund in their trade union. Also, in those ballots every 10 years—we are going into the fourth one now—more than 90% of members who vote are in favour of keeping their political fund. These are massive figures, which we as political parties can only dream of.
It is important to remember that freedom of affiliation is a fundamental pillar of our democracy. Before we rush into changing the way that these very important institutions work in society, we should reflect more carefully on what the perfectly foreseeable consequences of such legislation could be. The Bill is badly drafted. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) that it may be a deliberate attempt to do something else.
Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)
Paul Flynn Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
Yes, I have done that.
In our parliamentary democracy it is well established and accepted that many MPs have responsibilities beyond those of individual Back Benchers representing their constituents. There is nothing unusual about that. We do it as Ministers, as Chairs of Committees, and even in the distinguished role of Deputy Speaker of the House. Such responsibilities do not in any sense constrain Members of the House in being effective advocates and representatives on behalf of their constituents. I have not heard a serious suggestion that MPs should be barred from taking on responsibilities that go wider than their role as a constituency MP. The motion does not preclude Members from maintaining second jobs or paid outside interests; it merely sets out to impose a ban on a very specific type of employment.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the powerful point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) that our main task is to restore the standing of politicians in the country? Most people in the country regard our wage as very handsome, and they expect people to do a full-time job if they are getting a full-time wage. It cannot be done the other way round if people are part-timing.
Mr Lansley
My view, and I think that of the hon. Member for Hemsworth and Members across the House, is that it is perfectly possible in addition to one’s responsibilities to one’s constituents, and to the House, to undertake additional activities. We do that as Ministers, as Chairs of Committees, and in our constituencies in all sorts of ways. We do it in charitable work and, as has been said, when engaged in authorship and advisory positions, looking after charities and in all-party groups. If one looks at the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, one sees that people the length and breadth of this House are engaged in a wide variety of additional activities. It was held to be in the interests of the House that that wide range of activities should not be unduly constrained, but that Members should be completely transparent about their activities and interests, whether they are or are not remunerated, and how much time they take.
This issue was previously considered by an independent expert body—the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Opposition Front Benchers may like to recall that that Committee argued that those who wished to be full-time Members should be free to do so, but that it considered it
“desirable for the House of Commons to contain Members with a wide variety of continuing outside interests. If that were not so, Parliament would be less well-informed and effective than it is now, and might well be more dependent on lobbyists.”
The Opposition’s proposal could lead to the very thing that on this very day we are trying better to control.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I would like to apologise to the House for the fact that I was doing a second job earlier. I had to pop off and sit on a statutory instrument Committee. I shall have another second job in a bit, which involves sitting on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The quorum is two Members of Parliament and I believe that I am needed, so I shall pop over there for two minutes later on. All sorts of conflicts exist in the demands on Members’ time, but, to pick up on the demand made by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), I do not believe that having a “political class” is the solution.
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The motion is badly drafted, in that it would trap one of the businesses that I have created, but not the other. I shall talk a bit about my history. I first fought a general election in 1983, when I was the youngest Liberal candidate in the country. Later that year, I founded a business called John Hemming and Company. I fought the general election in 1987, and I was elected to Birmingham city council in 1990. I became the group leader and deputy leader of the council in 2004. During all that time, I have also chaired my business, which is now called JHC.
Speaking of conflicting demands on Members’ time, I went to chair my board meeting yesterday. It took two hours. I came into the House of Commons early, at about 7.30 in the morning, and at about 10 o’clock I got on the tube and went to my office. I chaired the meeting and was back here by noon. I have to ask: what is the big danger in my popping off to London Bridge for two hours, once a month? What mischief is created by that?
Paul Flynn
If there were a crisis in one of the hon. Gentleman’s businesses involving large sums of money, and he had to make a choice between dealing with that and an important constituency matter here, which way would he go? That illustrates the problem of dual loyalties and dual wages.
John Hemming
I am lucky, in that I am able to arrange things so that that does not happen. I am in control of the timing in the business. Obviously, my priority is with Parliament. My duty is to Parliament, as is quite clear under our constitution and, like most hon. Members, I work seven days a week performing that duty. Admittedly I only did half a day on Sunday, and I might finish by 4 o’clock on a Saturday, but I do work the standard 60, 70 or 80 hours a week, depending on what is going on.
It has been suggested that it would be reasonable to pay people like me who have large external earnings a lower rate of pay here. I do not mind that, as long as no one says that I am not a full-time MP. This is what I resent about the motion. Its argument is that I am not doing this job correctly for my constituents because I happen also to chair a business that I have run for many years.
Mr Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that, and I sincerely pay tribute to the work she does. She understands that by keeping in touch she is making sure that her considerable knowledge does not go out of date, which is a very important point. A lot of Opposition Members and Government Members bring knowledge and work experience to this place, but there is a danger that once we enter the House we start to lose touch with our job experiences. That is why I decided after the election not to carry on practising at the Bar, but to sit part-time as a Crown court recorder, where I do 15 days in the year. That is the minimum required, and the appointment was made just before I was elected to this House.
Paul Flynn
Does the hon. Gentleman surrender his salary during the time he is away from this place, as would happen in any other job? Another hon. Member said that he was away on a court case, but should he not have his wages here reduced, as would happen in any other occupation where someone is not available to do the full-time job for which they get a full-time wage?
Mr Buckland
I am disappointed with the hon. Gentleman. I do not do that, but I do keep fully in touch with what is going on, as with my work as a Member of Parliament. The fact that I, on 15 days of the year, choose to serve the public interest—that is what sitting as a part-time judge involves—keeps me in touch with the work that I used to do as a lawyer. It makes me keep up to date with sentencing law and the law of criminal justice, and it enhances the contributions I can make in this House. What is wrong with that?
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
This is hardly a spasm on my part. I greatly respect the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), but may I tell him that it was 16 years ago that I wrote in a book that all MPs’ additional earnings should be put into a charitable fund or used elsewhere? I repeated that in another splendid book that I published a short while ago. All the considerable royalties from that book go to charity—why not, because I already get a full-time wage for what I do?
I am sorry that I picked on the hon. Gentleman during his speech, but for five weeks last year I could not act as an MP. I did not receive any salary during that time—quite rightly so. We forget that we live in a little bubble with a system that we are used to, but people watching the debate and tweeting are baffled that anyone can say, “I have a job paying £65,000, but other jobs get my priority and attention at certain times.” If Members have to perform outside work, it would be easy—and absolutely right—to deduct the money earned from their parliamentary salary.
John Hemming
Should unearned income also be deducted from a Member’s salary?
Paul Flynn
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but it is part of a different argument.
The public will not see this subject in subtle tones or have regard to the lawyers’ arguments we are hearing. In 2009, after the great screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal, our reputation was at rock bottom, but now it is even worse—it is subterranean. We saw the reaction to the suggestion that MPs’ salaries should be increased: all the old resentment was churned up.
The Daily Telegraph did democracy a reasonable turn by submitting a freedom of information request that demanded to know the most popular book that wicked MPs were borrowing from the Commons Library. I am sure that its journalists were desperate for another negative story about MPs and that they prayed in their offices that that book would be “Fifty Shades of Gray”, “How to Keep a Moat”, or “Duck House Owning for Beginners”. However, the book in greatest demand at the Library was the improving tract that I wrote, which recommends that MPs live off their salary.
We must look at this from the perspective of outsiders, not by considering subtle points about what is unearned income and what is a salary. If Members want to get outside experience, there are splendid institutions in the House through which we can go off to join the Army, Navy or Air Force, or secure a fellowship with a commercial firm over many months. Those experiences are marvellous, but the important point is that they are not paid. The great resentment among the public arises because we receive a full-time wage and so we should be doing full-time work.
Sir Edward Leigh
The hon. Gentleman talks about resentment, but the public are angry about MPs’ expenses and salaries because they pay for them. Is he really suggesting that the public are furious that a Member of Parliament attends 12 board meetings a year? Does that really make them angry when they are not paying for it?
Paul Flynn
The answer is a resounding yes. I am sure that members of the public will write to the hon. Gentleman, because he explained earlier that he left Parliament, playing truant, to go to court and defend someone in a case, and no doubt he was paid a huge sum to do so, but for that period he was paid to be an MP, even though he could not possibly have performed his duties to the full extent that he should have done. Do the public resent that? Yes they do.
Oliver Colvile
Earlier this year I had to appear in the jury at the Old Bailey and so had to be away from this place for a week—[Interruption.] Some Members might think that I was there on trial, but I was actually doing my civic duty, and Members of Parliament are now required to do that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Colvile, I am not sure that quite fits with paid directorships and consultancies, so I think we will let your good duty in court go—[Interruption.] Sir Edward, I do not think we need any help from you either.
Paul Flynn
Again, there is a great gulf between what is happening in this Chamber and what is happening outside. I believe that it is entirely reasonable for Members who wish to go off and do other work to do so under certain circumstances, but let us get away from the idea that MPs, who get a handsome salary as far as most of our constituents are concerned, should greedily look for other earnings. Of course it is an advantage also to work as a journalist, a writer or whatever else, but when it comes to the crunch and there is a crisis, when Members know that they should be here writing to Ministers, demanding answers, making a case or meeting people, if someone comes along and says they’ll pay them 10 grand to write an article in the next 24 hours, what choice will they make? If there is no money involved, there is no real choice, as we know where our loyalties lie. We must escape from that. I appeal to Members: do they not know how low the public’s regard for us is?
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Would it not be clear, if we on the Government side of the House recognised that the people who would vote Labour believe that the amount of money going to them should be capped and the money should not go beyond £65,000, while we on this side of the House generally—not in my case, actually—do not feel that it is necessary to limit us and we can keep the money?
Paul Flynn
I have very little time to answer the hon. Gentleman, so I will return to my original case. Forget the intricacies of the matter and see it in simple terms, which is how the public will see it. Think of what the howling headlines will be if MPs insist on a full-time wage and then get additional wages on top of it. No one can do two jobs adequately.
Business of the House
Paul Flynn Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There were many happy consequences of the Prime Minister’s negotiating success in the budget negotiations. One was to reduce the overall size of the budget, and another was to give us the flexibility we are looking for, and focus on, improving our international competitiveness, and Wales will receive more than €2.145 billion in European funding from 2014 to 2020. We are focusing those funds on regions with lower GDP per capita, and using the full flexibility available. Among other things, that will provide west Wales and the valleys with an increase of €91 million compared with what the allocation would have been by applying the European Union formula alone.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
When can we have a debate on the failure of the Government’s prohibition of mephedrone, which resulted in a 300% increase in its use? The likely effect of the ban on khat will be to drive a wedge between the Somali and Yemeni populations and the police, and also increase use. When can we have intelligent drug policies that decrease use and harm, instead of more populist, prejudice-based policies that increase harm and use?
Mr Lansley
I believe we have an intelligent policy that focuses not just on harm reduction but on trying to get people off drugs altogether. That is the proper answer and where we need to get to, not just the shift from heroin to methadone with some of the risks and consequences that flow from that, including the risk of reverting to heroin use. I cannot promise a debate, but the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers will be in the Chamber on Monday and he may like to raise that point with them.
Business of the House
Paul Flynn Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I know that my hon. Friend has been assiduous in pursuing the issue and, in response to questions that he has asked before, I have raised it with my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport. I cannot promise a further immediate debate on rail matters—of course, some rail issues were open for discussion yesterday—but I will of course raise the issue with my hon. Friends once again on his behalf.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
When can we debate the office of police and crime commissioners, which is causing disruption, waste and unhappiness throughout the country? The concept of having two people in charge, one of whom has almost unlimited Henry VIII powers while the existing chief constables have their powers diminished and threatened, is a matter of great concern and a threat to the independence of our police.
Mr Lansley
I know that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issues relating to the police and crime commissioner in his part of the world with me and with the Prime Minister, and he will have heard the reply. I would say two things. First, democracy matters and, in this context, the accountability that comes with election is important in itself. I know that it is enabling people across the country to feel that to a greater extent than in the past their priorities can be directly reflected in the priority setting of police services for their area. Secondly, if he has specific issues about his constituency my hon. Friends from the Home Office will be available for questions on Monday 15 July.