House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Hayes

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

What I can say categorically to the hon. Gentleman is that there is nobody who has given one single penny to the Scottish National party— [Interruption.] Again, I appeal to people watching, if they want to give us money, please do so, but one thing we can never do—we never have and never will—is, in return, offer a place in our legislature or the ability to govern in this country. We do not do that, we cannot do that and we will never, ever do that.

Let me point to the scale of the difficulty of the problem when it comes to the donors. Some 68 out of 284 nominations from political parties between 2013 and 2023 were for political donors who had handed over £58 million to one of the three main parties. Over the course of that decade, some 12 of them gave £1 million. Now that might sound familiar to some Labour Members—£1 million is what people used to give to the Labour party under Tony Blair in the early 2000s to get a place in the House of Lords. Come on! Where is inflation when it comes to this? We would expect it to cost £1.5 million to get a place in the House of Lords now, but the going rate is seemingly still about £1 million.

Cash for honours was a disaster for Labour. It was absolutely awful. We saw the spectacle of a sitting Prime Minister being interviewed by the police about the donations that were being given to the Labour party. Those donations were interpreted as inducements to secure a place in the House of Lords. The Prime Minister was interviewed under caution and two of his personal staff were arrested. After that experience, we would be right to expect some sort of clarity in their thinking to take place. They could have decided never to get into that type of territory again—that they would do everything possible to ensure that money was taken out of politics, so that there would never be a whiff of suspicion that such a thing would happen again. But not a bit of it. Donors still go into the House of Lords, money still goes into the political party, and the public want it stopped.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I intervened merely to say this: many people might assume that he is being foolish for raising issues of financial shenanigans, mismanagement, concealing money, bribes and so on, but I think that he is just being brave. Just as a matter of record, I want it to be known by the whole House that this man is not a fool; he is a very courageous man.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. I will never again chastise him for quoting Proust in the House of Commons. I am sorry that I did that to him last time around.

That covers the donors. The other amendment that I managed to get included—again, this was a surprise to me—is one related to cronies. It would deny the Prime Minister the power to appoint people to the House of Lords. The Prime Minister has a prerogative that is almost unknown to any other western industrial leader—that he is exclusively responsible for appointing so many people to one part of our legislature. I think that something like 30% to 40% of the total membership of the House of Lords has now been appointed by a Prime Minister—by one man. That would make a tinpot dictator in a banana republic blush. He would want those powers in his hands immediately, but we have them in the United Kingdom. We allow a Prime Minister to determine—on his own—so many people in our legislature. That must come to an end. Of course, the temptation for the Prime Minister is to appoint his friends, to reward those who have been denied a place, to compensate people for losing their positions, to encourage people to take a role, but mainly it is to make sure that the donors are rewarded.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Hayes

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

No, I am going to finish now.

A vapid fascination with now—imagine that. Of course, those philosophers on the Labour Benches will know that “now” is an illusion, as now becomes then in an instant, does it not? Yet the politics of now have an extraordinary appeal for faint hearts and weak minds. I know there are not too many of those in the Chamber, although rather more than one might ideally wish. That fascination with modernity leaves me only able to finish by quoting Marcel Proust.

[Pete Wishart]

Oh, please not! [Laughter.]

[Sir John Hayes]

I know there are students of Proust littered among the saplings on the Labour Benches. If they are truly to become oaks and leave their acorns in the soil, they need to read Proust more. Proust said that

“the most deplorable prejudices have had their moment of novelty when fashion lent them its fragile grace.”

It is a prejudice that drives the Bill. It is a prejudice that does the House no credit—or at least, I should say, does the party opposite no credit.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Hayes

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 28th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Each of our lives—all lives—is characterised by change and challenge. We attempt to rise to the second and cope with the first. How successful we are in that depends on context, individuals and circumstances. What is absolutely certain is that the familiar touchstones of enduring certainty, by accentuating what we know, affirm our personal sense of belonging and communal notion of identity.

In trying to build a society in which the things that unite us are greater than any which divide us, mass migration proves difficult simply because of its scale and the difference it makes. When communities quickly change beyond or nearly beyond recognition, people find it hard to cope. That was precisely why the people decided to say, as expressed through the referendum, that they wanted no more of free movement, and that was what the Home Secretary and shadow Home Secretary drew the House’s attention to. Of course, that was not the only thing that the referendum was about but, emblematically, what people saw as migration “out of control” became a proxy for not being able to command their own future and not being able to govern themselves.

Free movement has that problem at its heart. The idea that people can come here at will, regardless of need and of what they do when they get here, and can choose where they go and what their life is like thereafter, seemed to be at odds both with immigration policy before, which was based on applications, visas, needs and specificities of various kinds, and with what the people who are here already feel is fair and reasonable.

[Pete Wishart]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct that immigration was the cold beating heart of the case for leaving the European Union—there is no doubt about that. However, he is just making a traditional, right-wing Tory speech on immigration, saying that immigration somehow changes communities and drives down wages. Does he have even a shred of evidence to support all these lazy, right-wing Tory views about immigration? We have never seen any evidence.

[Sir John Hayes]

I do not mind being called a traditional Tory, but I am not so keen on “lazy”. If I am articulating that view and if it reflects a view that is held by many of my constituents and a large number of other people, I am doing the House a service.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Hayes

Report: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

My right hon. and learned Friend has made the point about incomprehensibility previously. Indeed, when we debated the draft version of the Bill, one of the telling points he made was that new legislation was needed in part because it should be more comprehensible, easier to navigate and thus more understandable to more people. He is right that the fact that existing provisions are to be found in a number of places makes it hard to determine exactly what powers there are and how the abuse of those powers will be dealt with. I happily concede the point that he has made, because it is important that all Members of this House, particularly he and the Committee that he chairs, are fully aware of the kinds of penalties that might apply. I have described them as “severe”, and I have made the point that wrongdoing cannot be tolerated. Therefore, the least I can do is agree with him that it would be helpful to set out those penalties as he has described. We will do so before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament, because it is only right for us to do so.

The purpose of the amendments and new clauses that we have tabled is to reflect the consideration of the Committee chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend, and to reflect the character and content of the debate that took place when the Bill enjoyed scrutiny in Committee. As we considered privacy to an increasing degree, it became clear that as well as the implicit emphasis on private interest, which runs through the Bill, there was a compelling case for an explicit commitment to privacy in the form of a new clause. To that end, it is right to say that both the minor parties on the Committee—in this case, the Scottish National party—

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

indicated dissent.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) shakes his head, but given that the SNP had only two Members on the Committee, I cannot describe it as the major contributor. Before he started shaking his head, I was about to say that the SNP made an incredibly helpful contribution, because it tested the Government, held us to account and made a number of useful and thought-through proposals. The Opposition—by the way, I say to the hon. Gentleman that they are Her Majesty’s Opposition—equally added immense value to our consideration by making the proposal for this new clause, among others. In my judgment, it was absolutely clear that the Opposition were determined to improve the legislation, rather than to weaken or dilute it. In that spirit, I am happy to propose the Government new clauses and amendments in this group.

To allow as many colleagues as possible to contribute to this important debate, I will now finish, except to say this: when Bills come before the House and are considered on Second Reading and debated in Committee and on Report, different circumstances apply and different shadow Ministers and Ministers approach the matter in their own style, but I take the view that although circumstances are beyond human control, our conduct, to quote Benjamin Disraeli, “is in our power”, and our conduct in consideration of this Bill, which is in our power, should continue to be as measured, reasonable and moderate as it can be.

Intellectual Property (Hargreaves Report)

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Hayes

Thursday 7th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Lady made both those points earlier. With her usual assiduity, she has taken advantage of this opportunity to intervene on me to amplify them. I will deal with them in turn. First, that submission was indeed received and considered, and it played a part in informing the review’s recommendations, although it was not listed because, as I understand, it was received informally rather than through the formal process. Secondly, I am more than happy to commit my noble Friend Baroness Wilcox to meet her. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science will want to be involved, too, and will be happy to join that meeting. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) was also mentioned, and I shall deal with him later in my remarks. Given his Department’s involvement in the digital industries, an interface with him would be desirable, too. Having committed three of my colleagues’ diaries, I had better end on that point. However, we will have the meeting. I will insist that it happens.

Professor Hargreaves delivered his report, “Digital Opportunity”, to Ministers and the Government in May. Members know that the Government are considering that report and will not expect me to anticipate our response, but—it is right that the hon. Member for Wrexham raised the issue in his role as shadow Minister—I again make a clear commitment that the Government will publish our response within a month. There is another commitment made by a Minister who is not responsible for these matters; that is one of the virtues of being in this position.

[Pete Wishart]

When presented with the Hargreaves report, the Government said that the response would be published by the summer recess. What is the reason for the delay? It was a clear commitment to respond by the summer recess. Now the Minister is saying that it will take a month. Why the delay?

[Mr Hayes]

The Government need to consider such things carefully. The issues are complex. The hon. Gentleman made the point that they are challenging, and the Hargreaves review’s recommendations are wide-ranging. He knows the report well; I have it here. The volume of responses to the consultation was large, and they were wide-ranging in terms of both the ideas presented and the organisations that contributed. It requires serious and studious work. He might have wanted an early response, but better to have something satisfactory than something quick. I make the commitment that it will be published in a month, and I assure him that it will be a studious and carefully considered piece of work. I cannot go further than that. I am unable to give an account of the response’s contents before its publication, but I reassure the House that the Government recognise fully the seriousness of the matters raised in this debate and during the review and its publication, as well as the value of the industries that rely on intellectual property as their life blood.

Professor Hargreaves suggested that in some areas the UK’s intellectual property framework, especially with regard to copyright, is falling behind what is needed to meet new opportunities. That point has been made repeatedly today. The argument is that if we do not fix the framework, our economy will enjoy less innovation and lower growth. It is certainly true—I will comment this far on what we might say—that the UK needs open, contestable and effective markets in digital content and a setting in which copyright enforcement is effective. Copyright provides the legal framework to sustain and protect creative value. It needs to fit current conditions, and it should warrant, and get, the respect of consumers. In other words, while not anticipating our response, I think it is reasonable and fair to say, given that we have had such a serious debate, that we feel that changes will need to be made to bring the system in line with current conditions.

We need copyright content and technology working together, as has been said repeatedly. They should be in harmony, not in conflict. There should be a happy union between changing technology and copyright. We need an environment in which new businesses and technologies can compete fairly with existing ones. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Solihull. Although I qualified her argument about the relationship between SMEs, partner networks and large players, it is certainly true that there is a risk unless we get the balance right. The law in that respect is important. I mentioned the late Sir Hugh Laddie earlier. The hon. Lady will remember that he made a point, following the Gowers report I think, that the legal system militates against smaller businesses and against individuals purely on the basis of cost. The hon. Lady has reinforced that, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South made the same point. Therefore, there are issues to be considered, and as I have said, we take them seriously.

The review recommends that the Government ensure that the IP system is based on evidence. The right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) was right to insist that the Government’s response should also be evidentially based, and I assure him that it will be. Economic considerations should play a stronger role in assessing the nature and perhaps even the limits to rights, which is another point that he made. It is critical that we take an empirical view, inasmuch as one can in this dynamic and complex area. We will prioritise that kind of evidential approach.

On international priorities, the report recommends that the UK pursue international interests in emerging economies and prioritise the EU patent. We will, of course, look at that too, given some of the comments that have been made during the debate.

To improve the environment in copyright licensing, the Hargreaves review recommends the establishment of a digital copyright exchange. That has been mentioned several times, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley). Although he will know that that argument has been made by many people over a considerable period, the nature of the exchange, which we are considering alongside other recommendations, must be founded on consent. The idea that we have a state-driven, compulsory system that dictates and determines from the top is probably not compatible with the arguments that have been made by almost every contributor to the debate. It must be based on a collaborative and co-operative model.

The appointment of a champion for the digital copyright exchange has also been raised. I think it was my hon. Friend who said that the champion must not be a dictator, which is of course true. The champion would have to work closely with the industries concerned. The consultative nature of how the Government have gone about getting to where we are would need to characterise the subsequent arrangements that we put in place.

The review also recommends that the Government legislate to enable licensing of orphan works. I want to say more about that in response to the comments of the right hon. Member for Bath. It is important to design a scheme that prevents reappearing rights holders from losing control of their work. Any scheme proposed will have to involve a diligent search for rights information. That must surely be essential if such a scheme is to be fair to all parties. Perhaps I can put it in these terms: if the creator of a bestseller were to come forward, the work would no longer be an orphan work.

The right hon. Gentleman should welcome and not be fearful of the emergence of a missing great creative work. Occasionally, such things happen. Not long ago, an important work by Mozart was discovered, which is surely a cause for celebration. Mozart was perhaps the greatest of the baroque composers, but let us not go down that road or we will have a longer and perhaps less relevant debate. The character of genius is very interesting, but let us not talk about it here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

That is exactly what I was alluding to. My hon. Friend implied that in his earlier remarks; but for the reasons he has just given, the matter is complicated. The system would need to be thought through carefully to get the balance right. As I said, if he wants to give that more thought, I would be happy to receive representations on the matter. I will then pass them on to my noble Friend Baroness Wilcox and my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage.

[Pete Wishart]

I simply remind the Minister that I have five minutes to sum up at the end.

[Mr Hayes]

That is very generous of the hon. Gentleman.

Phonographic Performance Ltd

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Hayes

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hayes]

I shall deal with that specific question before I finish speaking. No doubt inspiration will wing its way to me to inform my response—the hon. Lady knows what I mean by that. She has made it clear that there are areas in which we can make improvements, notwithstanding the constraints to which I have referred. Ah! Inspiration may already have reached me, but I want—not tantalisingly, but temptingly—to delay what I say about that for a few moments.

[Pete Wishart]

I am very much looking forward to the Minister’s reply to tomorrow’s debate on the Hargreaves recommendations. He knows that nothing in the Hargreaves report suggests or recommends exempting small and medium-sized businesses with fewer than 50 people, so can he now rule that out and ensure that musicians continue to get fair play from the wonderful recorded works that they provide, which enhance so many businesses up and down the country?

[Mr Hayes]

We will not exempt small firms. That is the answer to the question. The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, and there is a case for exempting small firms, but the frank answer to his question and the question asked by the hon. Lady is that the UK would almost certainly be in breach of its international and European obligations if it did so. I can be very clear about that.

Let me deal with the hon. Lady’s intervention. Within the next month, she will learn more—because I will insist on it—about the Government’s response and thoughts on how we can take forward the review’s recommendations, where we feel that it is appropriate to do so.

I want to say more about what further progress can be made. First, we need to ensure that people understand the law and understand what not only PPL but all collecting societies from whom they need a licence are doing. We know from the ministerial postbag and from our constituency postbags and surgeries that many small businesses are unaware that they need a licence for the activities that we are discussing. The hon. Lady has made the point clearly. Many businesses question why they need a licence from PPL and PRS for Music to have the radio on in business premises when the broadcaster has already paid for a licence. Many ask why they need a licence at all. Where they do require licences from both PRS for Music and PPL, some businesses query, reasonably enough, why they are not told clearly that they need two licences and why joint licensing is not used to cut costs and the time that they have to spend on that.

PPL tells us that it is doing more to raise awareness among licensees and potential licensees. As a result of this debate, our further consideration and representations made to us from outside this place and within it, we will continue to press PPL to fulfil that commitment. Indeed, as a result of the debate, I will ask Baroness Wilcox, who is the Minister with responsibility for this area, to meet representatives of PPL to talk about how they can make the commitment real and what further steps they will be taking to address some of the questions that I have raised. Trade associations, too, must continue to build on the work that they do to raise awareness among their members. We will certainly involve them in that discussion.

Secondly, where charges are justified, they should be applied in a clear, unambiguous and efficient manner. Those wanting to start new businesses must not be deterred by uncertainties about charges that have no bearing on their core business. Thirdly, inquiries suggest that not all trade associations are aware that they can have a role in negotiating the terms and conditions of the licence for their sector. Some trade associations and licensees are even unaware that they can take a case to the Copyright Tribunal, if they are unhappy with the terms and conditions. They simply do not know their entitlements. The tribunal secretariat is working to raise awareness in those areas. It hosts regular user group meetings, which are aimed at making the tribunal more accessible by familiarising users, especially SMEs, with its procedures and giving them an opportunity to meet the chairman and lay members. The secretariat also hosts regular meetings of collecting societies to discuss, among other things, concerns raised by licensees.

I will also ask Baroness Wilcox to advance our work with trade associations. Of course, we do not exert executive power in that respect, but we will take the work further to ensure that all the steps are accelerated. It seems to me that a seminar might be appropriate. I am thinking of a seminar in which the interested parties are brought together to talk through what further steps might be taken to deal with some of the specific issues relating to small businesses raised by the hon. Lady. Perhaps my ministerial colleague will write to her and other interested hon. Members, addressing the possibility of just such an initiative.

I have heard much in this debate that provides food for thought. We do not take these matters lightly. In relation to charities, PPL has agreed to joint licensing with PRS for Music, which should reduce administrative burdens. The hon. Lady will know about that. We might be able to discuss, at the type of event that I have described, further steps along those lines, because there are community organisations—some of them are very small—that struggle to deal with some of these matters, not least in terms of information and understanding. On that basis, I welcome the agreement that has been reached and encourage exploration of other areas for joint licensing, notwithstanding the point that I made about exemption and the perfectly proper point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

We will reflect carefully on these matters before responding formally to the recommendations of the review. We will continue to work to ensure that the framework is explicable and accessible and that it operates fairly. There is a balance to be struck between the interests of different parties, as I think has been made clear in this brief debate. Those parties have a legitimate expectation that the system will work fairly. The regulation should certainly not be burdensome, and we need to ensure that we have some understanding of the costs of the regulation. When we promote steps that are designed to ensure that a system is operating fairly, we should always do so on the basis of understanding the cost burden that it creates. We also feel—I am sorry; I am using the royal “we”. I also feel that measurement of the function of these agencies is important, so having proper lines of accountability to ensure that what is being done is working as it should be is important.

This has been a useful albeit short debate. As I have said, it is remarkably timely. I hope that I have made reasonable commitments to the hon. Lady as a result of it. She will hear more very soon about our further reflections.