Brexit Negotiations

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am grateful for the contributions that were made, as I said in my statement, by the DUP and others who were concerned about the Union of the United Kingdom? The joint progress reported was strengthened to make it absolutely clear, as he says, that of course under the Belfast agreement we recognise the principle of consent, but nothing in that agreement will lead to a separation of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her reaffirmation that British citizens resident throughout the EU will continue to receive uprated pensions and, as I now understand it, healthcare and health-related exportable benefits. May I ask her to indicate whether those will continue into the foreseeable future?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can. The point of the agreement is to ensure that those rights and obligations do carry on in the future. A number of these issues are set out in the joint progress reports; there are specific references to the rules on healthcare, on social security systems and so forth. We are very clear that it is important that those rights be available for UK citizens in the EU, and they will be.

Proportional Representation

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 30th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Craig Mackinlay]

I do not disagree with the hon. Lady’s point, but when parties completely different from the main parties hold the balance of power, that is a danger.

I will close my remarks; I am glad they have caused some excitement. If we had a 33% result in this country, we would have another general election. That does not happen in Germany and other places that have PR in prevalence. I want strong Government, and first past the post, despite its flaws, tends to give that result most of the time. Frankly, I think we should reject any other system.

Several hon. Members rose—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

My miserable maths suggest that, if a self-denying ordinance is imposed and Members confine themselves to five minutes’ speaking each, most if not all Members will get in. If Members are greedy, not everybody will get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Ipswich borough consists of 16 wards, of which 13 comprise the parliamentary constituency of Ipswich and three are part of the Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency. That does what it says on the tin, consisting of a huge swathe of some of the most rural and prosperous parts of Suffolk, plus two council estates and some other dense housing in north-west Ipswich. Every time a resident of Ipswich contacts my office, my staff have to ask for their address to determine whether they are one of my constituents or a constituent of the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). Many residents of north-west Ipswich assume that they are represented by the MP for Ipswich, and can become irritated when they discover that they have to approach someone else, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman is becoming a little weary of my constant messages to his office informing him of my intention to attend events that involve Ipswich-wide groups or campaigns but that happen to be taking place in his constituency—although we do try to work together for the good of Ipswich wherever appropriate.

Of course, if the boundary commission changes go through before the next election, one ward’s worth of his constituents will not be allowed to vote on whether he has done a good job for them, because they will be transferred into my constituency. At the same time, it would be wrong for me to attempt to show the residents of that ward whether I am an effective MP until after the general election at which they can vote for me, or not.

I am lucky in that I have only one borough council with which I have to deal, and that borough council has only two MPs with which it has to deal. Just down the road in Essex, there are constituencies with boundaries that bear virtually no relationship to any recognisable geographical entities. Colchester, for instance, has suburbs such as Wivenhoe in the Harwich constituency and Stanway in the Witham constituency. Across the country MPs have to deal with one council for one part of their constituency and another council for another part. That has a seriously damaging effect on the level of democratic engagement.

We have a supposedly geographic system of representation —MPs are elected to represent geographic constituencies— but how can we use the importance of the geographic link between the MP and their residents as an argument for keeping the first-past-the-post system when half the residents of this country do not know which constituency they live in? If and when they do learn which constituency they live in, find out who their MP is and develop some sort of relationship with them, the Boundary Commission is likely to come along and ship them over into some other constituency, so they cannot vote for that MP anyway.

We are not here to propose a specific alternative electoral system, but rather to debate whether there might be any merit in looking at any alternatives. It is entirely possible to devise a system of geographic representation that enables meaningful and fixed constituencies of varying sizes coupled with a proportional top-up to ensure that the overall result is fair. It is not necessary that that top-up should be done with a list system. I was never a great fan of the system proposed at the last referendum on the voting system, and I do not propose that we revisit it. My perception of the AV referendum was that it was a referendum on the popularity of Nick Clegg. The vast majority of people had no idea how the system they were voting for or against was supposed to work, and I have to say that any hon. Members in this place who believed that it was a proportional system were among them.

Surely this debate is about whether the current system is fit for purpose, and I suggest that given we elect people to represent geographic entities that mean nothing to the voters, and change their boundaries on a regular basis, it is about time we looked at something more meaningful, which would actually accord with the expectations of our voters.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Thank you for your courtesy and your restraint. We have accommodated all the Back Benchers who wished to speak. Well done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lord]

May I ask one important question? In its manifesto, the Labour party talked about a convention. Can we establish that if any reforms were to be made under a Labour Government, they would be subject to a referendum? That is important for our constitution, and for public good will.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady courteously gave way, so the hon. Gentleman has the right to the floor, but I make the point from the Chair that it is customary for Members to come and listen to the debate before intervening.

[Cat Smith]

If the hon. Gentleman had been here for the debate, he might have found that that question was answered earlier.

What is the Government’s position on votes at 16? The First Secretary of State and Minister for the Cabinet Office said in a recent report that

“it is important for Conservatives to demonstrate to young people…that we take their opinions seriously. Supporting a reduction in the voting age would be a dramatic way of doing that”.

Is it the Government’s position to support votes at 16 or not? There is support for it across the House, and I hope that Members in favour of it will support the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), which will be debated this Friday.

When it comes to electoral reform, it is important that people are entitled and registered to vote. We have a particular problem with fair registration for people who move house often because they rent privately. Students and young people are also less likely to vote. What are the Government doing to ensure that mobile and transient groups, such as students and those in private rented accommodation, do not fall off the electoral register every year? It is hard for people to check whether they are on the electoral roll. I highlight the work done in the London borough of Hackney, the first council in which people can check online to see whether they are registered to vote in the borough. Would the Government consider rolling that out nationally?

Finally, there is no point making radical changes to our electoral system if we do not have the staff to manage them. Many people assume that there is a big machine behind the delivery of elections. In fact, the delivery of electoral services is generally administered by small, often relatively junior teams. The Association of Electoral Administrators describes the industry as

“pushed to the absolute limit”

by this Government’s funding cuts and the rushed move to individual electoral registration. Staff are stressed, there are very few experienced electoral administrators left and the number of people leaving the profession has almost doubled since 2015. What are the Government doing to ensure that our elections are properly staffed, and what will they do to protect the mental health and wellbeing of electoral administrators?

It is important that we look at different voting systems as part of a wider package of constitutional and electoral reform to address the growing democratic deficit across Britain. We must see some action on the issue.

Chilcot Inquiry and Parliamentary Accountability

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

From time to time, Members of this House of Commons have the burden of debating whether to send our finest young men and women into harm’s way, and sometimes to their deaths. I do not believe that any Member of this House, on either side, ever takes that decision lightly, and we need always to take that decision based on the best possible information.

At the start of the second Iraq war, my young constituent Lieutenant Marc Lawrence, serving on a Sea King helicopter, was killed. That in itself is possibly a matter for a further inquiry, but I know that that loss was devastating to Marc’s parents and I believe that they have a right to know that their only son lost his life in a just cause and that his sacrifice was worth while.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I voted to send that young man to his death. On the eve of the vote, a significant number of Members then on the Opposition Benches, including myself, had grave disquiet about the cause on which we were due to embark. I and about a dozen colleagues met the then Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), and the shadow Foreign Minister, the then Member for Devizes, Michael Ancram. The Leader of the Opposition told us on Privy Council terms that he had been informed on Privy Council terms by Mr Blair that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction and that there was a 40-minute threat to UK interests and that therefore our support for the motion before the House the following day was vital.

I am afraid that I cannot concur with the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton). I sat on those Benches and listened to the tone of the debate as well as to the words that were said. I have to say that I believe that the House was deliberately misled. There were no weapons of mass destruction, as we now know, and there was no 40-minute threat. I think that it is plain—I am convinced that it is plain, sadly—that Mr Blair had made a pledge to President Bush that the UK would be delivered and that he was determined to deliver the UK in support of that war.

We cannot let this matter rest. We owe it to our armed forces to see this through. I support the call to ask the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to take further action. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), the Chairman of the Committee, has indicated to me privately, as he has indicated on the Floor of the House today, that his inquiries are ongoing and that further recommendations will be made. I am grateful for that.

I resent the fact that this is described as an opportunist Scottish National party motion. Technically, yes, this is an Opposition day debate, but the motion has cross-party support and I am grateful that the Government have effectively recognised that this is a House of Commons matter and should never be a party political matter.

I am not interested in a witch hunt against a former and discredited Prime Minister. I concur entirely with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) when he says that we must seek to take every measure to try to ensure that these circumstances do not arise again. We cannot bring back the dead, but we can help to prevent further and unwarranted sacrifice of the men and women of our armed forces. I am not interested in the outcome of this vote. Whatever the outcome, I hope that my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee will help to ensure that the right measures are taken so that we never, ever face such circumstances again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin]

Sit down! We’ve heard enough from you. Sit down! I want to say this: the Chilcot report—

[Sir Roger Gale]

rose—

[Ian Austin]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Sir Roger Gale]

The hon. Gentleman is doing the House no service. This is a very serious issue. Those of us on the Government Benches who have lent our names to the motion did so in the interests of our armed forces. That is what we are here to discuss.

[Ian Austin]

I accept that, and I paid tribute to the armed forces right at the outset. I now want to discuss the Chilcot report.

The Chilcot report will clearly never settle arguments about whether the war in Iraq was right or wrong, but it should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or deceit. It finds, first, that there was no falsification or misuse of intelligence by Tony Blair or No. 10 at the time; secondly, that there was no attempt to deceive Cabinet Ministers; and thirdly, that there was no secret pact with the US to go to war. That means there is no justification for saying, as the co-leader of the Green party did at the weekend:

“Tony Blair lied to the public, parliament and his own cabinet in order to drag us into the Iraq war.”

That is not true. Whether SNP Members like it or not, the truth is that Chilcot rejected allegations that Tony Blair said one thing in public and another in private. People can be for or against the war, but it is not true to say that Tony Blair lied about it. We have heard repeatedly this afternoon Sir John Chilcot’s response to the question when he absolved Tony Blair of any attempt to mislead or lie.

Let us be honest about this: the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond)—I think I have got that right—has many skills, achievements and attributes, but I do not think that even the most sycophantic member of the SNP fan club would claim that self-effacing modesty or the capacity for self-examination are among them. Let us look at his record and judgment on international issues. In 2014, as Putin’s tanks massed on the border of Crimea and after NATO had warned that Russia

“threatens peace and security in Europe”

and had criticised

“President Putin’s threats against this sovereign nation”,

he said he admired “certain aspects” of Putin’s leadership and that it was a “good thing” he had restored Russian national pride—

European Council

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There is no doubt that we do face constraints, because the single market works through a common set of rules that have to be agreed. As has been said, we do not always get our way, although I would argue that we get our way far more often than we do not. There are occasions when we lose a vote and we are constrained by EU regulation or legislation. The question I think we now need to put in a very hard-headed “Realpolitik” sense is this: “If you are outside, does this give you the full control and sovereignty that you seek?” It does not, because we still have to trade with Europe and accept the rules. The only thing achieved is to have removed ourselves from the conversation and taken away our vote.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has said that this will settle the issue for a generation. I am blessed with five grandchildren and I believe that it is in their best interests that I vote to remain within the European Union. There is another generation that is a matter of some concern. Thousands of people who have paid UK taxes and national insurance over the years are now living in other parts of Europe. My right hon. Friend knows that I have sought to represent the interests of those people. They are very frightened indeed. Can he tell them what will happen to them if we leave the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for deciding to support the case for remaining in the EU. He raises an important point. We often look at free movement in terms of people’s decision to come here, but we also need to think about the many British people who have chosen to work, live or retire in other parts of the EU. The short answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that I can tell those people what it will be like if we stay, but I cannot be absolutely certain about what would happen if we leave. It would depend on a complex and difficult negotiation, and I think there would be a lot of uncertainty. I would urge all those people, who have the right to vote, to make sure that they exercise it. We should perhaps think particularly about people in Gibraltar who are all able to vote in this referendum.

Tunisia, and European Council

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are backing those Governments who want to see an active and positive civil society and encouraging democracies such as Tunisia. We are saying to other countries that are not yet democratic that they should be putting in place the building blocks to become democratic countries. As we look at how we best confront terrorism, I am convinced that giving young people in those Arab societies greater hope of participation, democracy and rights is part of defeating the narrative about which I have been speaking.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I know that all other members of the British-Tunisia all-party parliamentary group will wish to endorse the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and by Members on both sides of the House who have lost constituents. It would be of no service to the memory of those who have lost their lives if we were to allow an emerging democracy in Tunisia to fail and the terrorists to succeed. When my right hon. Friend receives requests from the Tunisian Government, as I understand from the ambassador that he will, will he seek to ensure that not only the United Kingdom but the European Union gives every possible support in terms of security and the training of security forces? Will he also seek to ensure that the European Union pays the money that it promised but so far has not delivered?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, we will help, and the offer is there. Also, because today not only the Home Secretary but a German Interior Minister and a French Interior Minister travelled together to Tunisia, I hope we can co-ordinate the assistance that we are offering, because otherwise I fear that the Tunisians will be overwhelmed with offers of help and may struggle to put them into place.

I want to stress this: when we set the risk ratings and the travel advice for countries, we must take into account their capacity to militate against these threats, so the work that we are urging the Tunisians to do with us is very urgent.

Debate on the Address

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 27th May 2015 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Interventions have taken their toll on injury time. To accommodate all hon. Members who wish to speak, I find it necessary to reduce the time limit to 10 minutes, as of now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I remind the House that maiden speeches are by convention heard with appreciation, if appropriate, but without intervention. It is a pleasure to call the first maiden speaker of the 2015 Parliament, Mr Brendan O’Hara.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I can say to the hon. Gentleman that what is worth while is the massive fall in unemployment and the increase in employment that we have seen across our country. In Wales, unemployment has fallen by 5,000 in the last quarter and fallen by 25,000 since the last election. That means that in Wales there are 59,000 more people in work. In terms of making sure that the richest in our country pay their taxes, actually we see the richest 1% paying a greater percentage of income tax than ever they did under Labour. We are seeing a broad-based recovery, and I want to make sure that everyone in our country can benefit. That is why we are cutting people’s taxes and allowing people to keep the first £10,000 of what they earn before they pay any income tax.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

At the end of November, Mrs Ann Gloag, a director of the Stagecoach company, acquired Manston airport in my constituency for £1. On Budget day this year, Mrs Gloag announced that she was going into consultation with a view to closing an airport that is worth hundreds of jobs and is a major diversion field and a search and rescue base. Since then, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and I have sought to find a buyer. Last night, the RiverOak company of Connecticut, which already has airport interests, put in an enhanced and realistic offer to keep Manston open, save the jobs, and develop the business. At present, the owners are reluctant to negotiate. I do not expect my right hon. Friend to engage in commercial negotiations, but will he seek to ensure that the Civil Aviation Agency operating licence remains open, that Manston remains open, and that further discussions are held; and will he encourage those discussions to take place?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my hon. Friend has been fighting very hard, with my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), about the future of Manston airport and recognises that it has played an important role in the local economy and employed local people. Ultimately, the future of Manston remains the responsibility of the airport owner, but it is important that the Government are engaged, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary is engaged. He will be speaking to Mrs Gloag about this issue and also contacting RiverOak, the potential purchasers. In the end, it has to make a commercial decision, but the Government will do everything they can to help.

International Wildlife Crime

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on saying much of what needs to be said, making our lives and yours, I suspect, Madam Deputy Speaker, easier.

I applaud the fact that the Duke of Cambridge has joined his father, the Prince of Wales, and his father, the Duke of Edinburgh, as the third generation of royals who have chosen to participate in and throw their weight behind the London conference at Lancaster House. I hope that United for Wildlife will prove to be exactly that: an alliance of worldwide organisations and Government agencies with one clear aim in mind, which is to protect the wildlife of the world.

It is important that we seek to identify the scale of international criminality involved in this trade, as my right hon. Friend sought to do. For six years in the 1990s, I served as chairman of the all party group on animal welfare and was privileged to work closely at that time with the Environmental Investigation Agency, an incredibly brave organisation whose staff went undercover and did a huge amount at that time to seek effectively to terminate the trade in ivory, with huge success. Therefore, it is a great sadness that that trade has picked up again, largely as a result of the action of international Governments, who, as my right hon. Friend said, mistakenly chose to reintroduce the trade in ivory stocks, which led to further demand.

Points have been made about the manner in which even in the Kruger national park, for God’s sake, rhinos that were hunted in their tens five or 10 years ago are now hunted in their thousands, which is appalling. We have put so much effort into the preservation of habitat that it would be a fine irony, would it not, Madam Deputy Speaker, if we preserved the habitat but not the animals that want and need to live in it. The lions, rhinos and elephants of Africa are important magnificent beasts, as are the tigers of Asia.

There are two markets. The first is the moronic tourists who with telescopic rifles slaughter wild animals from a safe distance and then go home and brag about how brave they have been and how close they got to the kill. Those people need to be ostracised totally, and it is up to the international community to seek to control the tourist trade—I use the word “tourist” loosely—in what is revoltingly, but accurately known as “canned” hunting. These are cowardly acts and they should be condemned as such.

There is a second and much more sinister side to this, and that is the Chinese and far east mafia, who trade in rhino horn and tiger bone as traditional remedies that are no more effective or useful than your or my toenail clippings. This is criminality piggybacking on primitive culture to service a serious demand for medicine that has no medicinal value whatever. There has to be a need for concerted international effort at the highest level to stamp out this strand of crime. We fight the trade in drugs and blood diamonds, we fight money laundering and people trafficking, but while claiming that we care about the environment, the international community has paid far too little attention to our diminishing wildlife heritage and those who prey upon it.

The London conference has to deliver not a plan for talk but a plan for action, backed by hard cash and by absolutely ruthless enforcement.

St John Ambulance

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate, although it is not one for which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) or I wished to call. My name came out of the hat, but I take no pleasure in the necessity of the debate taking place. I am—at least for the next hour and a half or so—the vice-president of the Canterbury and Coastal branch of St John. Before the restructuring of the organisation, I was proud to be the vice-president of the Herne Bay branch in my constituency.

The St John Ambulance service is an organisation that has been revered, honoured and respected in Herne Bay for generations. Its presence at the Queen Vic memorial hospital summer fête, the Lark in the Park, football matches, rugby matches and other sporting events, and many concerts and performances held in Kings Hall has been part of the fabric of the town, and the branded ambulances have provided succour for those injured, sick or in need of transfer from one medical facility to another. In my parliamentary lifetime, volunteers such as the late and much loved John Morriss and, currently, George Tunnadine and his partner have been mainstays of our community. They and many others around the county of Kent have accumulated years of dedicated service to society and the public, and have provided countless hours of hard work behind the scenes, learning and then passing on to others their first-aiding and medical skills.

That wonderful inheritance has been placed at risk through mismanagement and a failure to communicate by those charged with protecting it, preserving it and passing it on to their successors, which is why we are here this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury—if he catches your eye, Mr Turner—will deal with specific issues illustrated by and arising from the situation at St John nursing home in Whitstable in his constituency. Others will also wish to have their say, and I am aware that the St John damage control machine has sought to brief individual Members and the Minister about the huge and unqualified success of what others regard as administrative vandalism.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend about the incredible service of local people to the St John Ambulance brigade over so many years. I pay particular tribute to my own friend and colleague, David Hempleman-Adams, who was the chairman of the Wiltshire organisation, until it was closed recently, and is now a trustee nationally. He would disagree about the structural points that my hon. Friend is about to make.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is sitting on my right, but as those remarks have not yet been made, it might be polite, if nothing else, if he were to wait until I have said what I am going to say. I can say to him that I am sure that the St John briefing notes, which I have seen, will have been well and truly read into the record by the time that we are through.

I will not detain hon. Members for too long, but I need to illustrate with broad brush strokes what has gone wrong and then, as the subject of the debate is the regulation of St John Ambulance by the Charity Commission, set out why the commission has been unwilling, or unable, to intervene in a manner that might have been expected in the interests of those supportive members of the public who have so generously given many millions of pounds over the years to the St John Ambulance service. It is not my style to say under privilege anything that I would not be prepared to say outside Parliament on the record or in public. Nor do I propose—this might come as a relief to some—to name names or to besmirch individual reputations. There is, however, a collective responsibility at the very top of St John that has to be held to account. My understanding is that, in recent years, the St John accumulated reserves have suffered from a near catastrophic 30% loss. I am sure that that figure will be disputed and that “reasons beyond our control” will be offered for the failure to protect the charity’s funds properly.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not want to pre-empt anything that he might say, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) did, but will he recognise at least that these have been tough economic times for many charities? St John is no different from any other charity that has had to restructure itself to ensure that it can protect front-line services. The evidence that I have seen in my constituency, in Braintree and Halstead, and throughout Essex is that that is exactly what St John has been doing.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I get the sneaking feeling that my hon. Friends on either side of me are reading the next paragraphs of my speech.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir Roger Gale]

I shall now say—

[Natascha Engel]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Roger Gale]

I am so sorry; yes, of course.

[Natascha Engel]

The hon. Gentleman is aware that I am supposed to be delivering an open lecture between half-past 2 and 4 o’clock—exactly when this important debate is taking place—so I am grateful to him for giving way.

I have had serious concerns for some time about that financial restructuring and about the reporting and accounting within St John Ambulance. I hope that the debate will make the Charity Commission look again at the organisation, the treatment of its members and, most of all, the governance of St John Ambulance, because the commission has not taken seriously enough what is going on within the organisation. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for giving way, and I hope that he will forgive me for disappearing straight away.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I apologise that I did not see the hon. Lady come into the Chamber. I had said that I would give way to her the moment she walked in because, for reasons that everyone in the House will understand, she has to leave for a long-standing commitment elsewhere. She is, however, one of the three Members who pitched for the debate—my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and I were the others—and I thank her for her support.

I happen to be a supporter of a significant international charity with which I am fairly heavily involved, so I am aware that fundraising in times of austerity is not easy, that returns on investments may be low and that great care and caution have to be taken to protect assets, staff, and the aims and objectives of the charitable organisation. The reaction of St John Ambulance to the situation it faced—due, I believe, to mismanagement—appears to have been draconian and, to say the least, badly handled. It has cost the charity many members and loyal staff, as well as much support in the country.

Faced with severe losses, St John embarked on a national reorganisation in 2011. It said that that was undertaken following full consultation, but as one who was only remotely and peripherally involved, I am in a position to say that no one within the mantled ranks of the priory appears to have been listening and that such consultation as did take place was tardy, inadequate, unheeded and designed to promote and implement decisions that had already been taken. I believe—in fact, I know—that I am not alone in that experience.

On the lines of an experiment conducted by the UK branch of the Red Cross, the St John counties were abolished, with eight regional organisations put in their place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) indicated, any organisation faced with difficulties has the absolute right to restructure. St John, however, might have heeded the results of the Red Cross adventure, which showed that the loss of local ownership led to a loss of membership, support and local income. That process ended with a reversal of the decision.

[Mr Newmark]

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying and I will not contradict—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Newmark]

Mr Turner, I was in full flow before the Division, and I have almost lost my train of thought. I do not contradict the point my hon. Friend is making about Kent, but does he accept that there may be regional disparities? When I heard about this debate, I spoke to my local contact in Essex, our mutual friend, Janie Siggers, and tried to obtain an understanding of what is going on in Essex. The issues that my hon. Friend is raising are not reflected in Essex. Does he accept that there may be some regional disparities?

[Sir Roger Gale]

I accept that. I know the lady to whom my hon. Friend refers and she is extremely hard-working. I concede that there may well be regional variations, and I will come to that precise issue almost immediately, but I cannot help feeling that the fundamental malaise comes from the very top, and that while some organisers have chosen to interpret instructions in a particular way and successfully, others have been perhaps less successful or felt that they were put under pressure. I am not suggesting that the people doing the job are bad people, except perhaps at the very top, and even then I do not mean that they are bad people in that sense.

We now move into uncharted territory, and I will offer the House some observations that have been made to me, not only from Kent but from East Sussex, the midlands and Yorkshire, as examples of precisely this effect of top-down diktats. When events such as this debate reach the public airwaves, testimony also emerges. During the past week, I have taken phone calls and received written communications from people whose details I have but whom I propose to anonymise for the record.

From East Sussex, a volunteer with 35 years’ service under their belt speaks of a branch that in 2008 had a membership of nearly 86, but which has now declined to just three or four. They also tell me of some 13 units whose headquarters buildings are to be sold, and that is in just one district. Another volunteer tells me of training that has gone downhill, with sessions booked from a centralised HQ in Aylesbury that is out of touch with the rest of the new region. In the former area, there were 146 trained emergency ambulance crews; in the corresponding new administrative area, there are only 86. I was told of headquarters premises sold by St John for £80,000 to a developer, who cleared the site and sold it on for £220,000. St John’s justification for that seems to have been, “We’re not property developers.”

It has been suggested to me—of course, the accurate figures must be available within St John—that the result of reorganisation has been a loss in Kent alone of perhaps as much as 75% of the membership. That is all anecdotal, of course, but it is a matter of record that on Thursday 24 January 2013, a special resolution was tabled calling for a vote of no confidence in the priory and the priory council of St John. That resolution was defeated, but in circumstances that the record suggests were, at the very least, bizarre.

Instead of citing telephone calls, I will quote directly. From Kent:

“We learned of the reorganisation in 2011 and that the new structure would be in place by October 2012.

Kent became part of the South East Region on 1st October 2012 being administered from the Regional Office in Aylesbury.

Our County HQ at West Malling was closed and almost all of the loyal staff made redundant.

All funds that were held in County accounts were amalgamated into the Regional Pot.

The feeling among the membership is that the new Regional Directors are trying to run St John as a commercial company and that making a profit is their main aim.

A small number of local events that we covered for a small donation are now not able to run because St John wants to charge them a commercial price and they cannot afford it.

Each Division would raise funds to buy a new Ambulance; they took pride in their vehicle, kept it clean and well stocked and were proud to display their Divisional name on the side of the Ambulance. Those Ambulances have had the names removed and no longer belong to the Division but are moved around the Region with no-one taking ownership for their cleanliness and equipment.

Kent was one of the best-run Counties in the Country with a very strong membership providing thousands of hours of voluntary service to the public of Kent. Sadly, the membership is declining fast and it appears that what has taken over 1000 years to establish the new management have destroyed in just over a year.

I would be interested to know where the funds that we held in Kent have disappeared to.”

From the east Midlands, a long-standing and very faithful divisional superintendent gave the following reasons for his recent and unexpected resignation from St John. I am quoting from a minute:

“That the commercial side of St John was taking over and using the voluntary arm, for financial gain, neither of which is within the spirit of St. John.

To achieve this end there is no regard or concern for the volunteers. We have not been consulted about anything, decisions are made over our heads even when affecting our Units personally, even including the decision to close down a particular unit.

The Leaders of East Midlands Region say whatever is suitable for the occasion, even if it’s not the truth and even if they’d said the total opposite before.”

That is followed by something that is even more disparaging and I will not read it out. It continues:

“The need for change in St. John is understood but the harsh, inconsiderate manner, with few explanations and little consideration of the volunteers, is not an appropriate way to introduce these changes. A more humane, considerate approach could have produced a better outcome.”

Another volunteer from Kent said that

“having been a member for almost 38yrs I am totally confused with this ‘restructuring’. All I see is an excuse to take all Divisional funds away from the Divisions into one large pot… Divisions virtually have to beg for funds and they are a long time coming if they come at all.

We now have a District Manager in Kent telling us he wants us to work with local authorities and KCC and his vision is to cut out event cover completely! Our whole ethos…for the past 1000 years has been to give help to the sick and since we were reformed in 1877 in England we have always covered public events assisting the injured. Our Division has some events we have been covering over fifty years.

I am very sad that everything St. John stands for is being undermined.”

[Mr Gray]

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. I understand that local people are disturbed by these kinds of reorganisations; that is always the case. Will he explain why this is a matter for Her Majesty’s Government, or even why it is a matter worth raising in this Chamber? These might be worrying developments, but are they really a matter for Parliament?

[Sir Roger Gale]

I have already indicated the subject of the debate to my hon. Friend. The debate is about the Charity Commission’s involvement in the matter, which is a matter for Her Majesty’s Government. I will come on to that in a few moments, if he can possess his soul with a little patience.

A community first responder unit said:

“We would like to inform St John that after a unanimous vote by all CFR members we are going to close the Community First Responder Scheme… This will also mean that our St. John Membership will also cease. Some of the reasons that have caused us to take this decision are listed below…poor communication on behalf of St. John…poor record keeping on behalf of St John…lack of information on behalf of St John…forced to purchase through St John’s Services—not the best option…bad press coverage of St. John Ambulance”.

That final catalogue perhaps exemplifies the high-handed, arrogant and remote manner in which the Priory of England and the Islands of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem and the St John Ambulance leadership seem to have severally and collectively treated their volunteers and erstwhile supporters—that and the selling of the family silver.

Local headquarters are, of course, ultimately the property of St John, but with the funds to purchase and maintain those properties raised locally, it is not surprising that a sense of local pride and ownership has prevailed. To see their premises flogged off to meet the costs of the failings and excesses of what they regard as a bureaucratic and elitist London headquarters has proved to be more than many formerly loyal supporters can bear. A cleric from Yorkshire writes that

“when Selby was sold, the property which had been bought by the county had its proceeds taken from them for HQ funds. When a new property was found, the county leased it on a rent and had to pay so much a month for its use out of their own funds. They were not able to use the monies from the old property in any way! The same also was true for the Scarborough Division when it changed properties. I always think that it is unfair when London swallows up what has been raised by hard work in the counties—don’t you agree?”

I have to say that I do agree.

Against that unhappy backdrop, the Chamber will, I hope, shortly hear of the concerns surrounding the future of funds donated for the support of the St John residential home in Whitstable. Members may also hear of the shift—denied by St John—away from its core and Christian services and values, morphing a fine institution into little more than a commercial health and safety training organisation.

To directly answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), I have a question for the Minister. When my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and I referred the conduct of St John to the Charity Commission, we were told that:

“It is important to emphasise that although the Commission’s functions include encouraging and facilitating the better administration of charities, and taking remedial action to tackle misconduct or mismanagement, the law prohibits the Commission from acting directly in the administration of the charity. Trustees are the managers of their charities and it is their job to make the administrative and strategic decisions necessary for their charities’ proper and effective management… The Commission cannot direct the trustees to take one particular course of action or another. Neither does the Commission have discretion to overrule the trustees’ validly taken decision on the grounds that others take a different view, however strongly held.”

Either my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me that the commission is wrong and does have the powers to instigate independent inquiries into the conduct and management of St John, or he will have to tell me that the commission is correct and has no powers to intervene. If the latter is the case, the House will need to address that by giving the Charity Commission the additional powers necessary to properly discharge its duties in the public interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

I am grateful for that intervention because it makes my next point for me. In spite of what has happened, and against that background, my understanding is that the organisation nationally—this is certainly my experience locally—has improved its performance. It is training more people and functioning in a much more open fashion, and it has listened and taken note of the report it sought on its governance. As I understand it, the report was independent and said that the organisation was too bureaucratic and complex, that it lacked clear governance policies and lines of accountability and that, essentially, there were too many committees and too many roles. Perhaps that is inevitable in an organisation split over 41 semi-autonomous bodies but, none the less, St John sought to improve that state of affairs after hearing the view of the expert body asked to review it. Again, my group, which is based just over the border into Wakefield, at Ossett, has welcomed the improved situation in which it now functions.

It is also important to look at information from bodies such as the Care Quality Commission. It has continued to provide inspection reports that have shown, certainly in my area, that St John is providing a service of a very high standard. Obviously, if the two hon. Gentlemen from Kent—the hon. Members for North Thanet and for Canterbury—have misgivings about the organisation and management of a St John home in their area, it is their responsibility to make those concerns public. Nobody has any misgivings about that, or any opinion other than that that is exactly the right thing to do. I would have done the same about something in my constituency, but to extrapolate from that a wholesale belief that the organisation is far away from its objectives and delivery targets, as was suggested at the start of the debate, seems to be neither sensible nor safe.

May I make a rather partisan, north-south point? The two hon. Gentlemen from Kent who proposed the debate—they are supported by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who came and went, who I understand was born in Kent—perhaps might just, in their more charitable moments, accept that the world extends beyond Kent. I think that they have to be told that there is life north of Watford.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I spoke for a long time, so I had not intended to intervene further, but I have been goaded into doing so. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), I made it very clear that I accept that there might be regional variations. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) was back from voting when I referred to not only Kent, but East Sussex, the east midlands and Yorkshire, and quoted people from those areas. Although I accept that the issue may be regionalised and that there may be variations in the nature of the problem, I have to ask him to accept that it is wider than just Kent.

[Mike Wood]

I accept that, although I think I was making a slightly wider point: on most indices, Kent is a rather well-heeled part of Britain, and I think—[Interruption.] I understand that that is not the case for all parts of Kent, but I am talking in the round. I think that part of the problem may be the inability of some in the organisation, and perhaps their representatives, to accept that when resources are under more pressure, especially, their distribution may need to be a little fairer than was previously the case. That would certainly benefit—it appears to have benefited—areas such as mine, which now feel that they are better served than before.

I understand that the intention of the debate is to bring the organisation and its management to the attention of the charity commissioners. Nobody that I have spoken to in St John, and certainly not within my local group, has any problem with that—in fact, they would welcome it in some ways. However, I wanted to put on record a slightly more positive picture of the function of St John around the country.

Finally, I again place on record my thanks to the members of my local group, which is based in Ossett. They have always done a first-rate job and are incredibly valued and welcomed in my locality.

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

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

I can honestly confirm that I am a parliamentary bore and that I am speaking at this great length because I can bore on the subject, and I think that Members on both sides of the Committee would agree that I am demonstrating that with some aplomb. The hon. Lady makes a serious point about the lack of time that the Government have made available. I deeply regret that the Bill has not gone upstairs, where you would have ably chaired the proceedings, Sir Roger—you would have kept us all in order, as you do so well as Chairman of the Panel of Chairs—and that all we have is four and a half hours—

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that he is, and has been, absolutely in order. Were it otherwise, he would have been stopped.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful to be admonished for staying in order.

The hon. Lady makes a serious point. We have only four and a half or five hours to consider a huge piece of legislation. Frankly, this should have been scrutinised much better. I fail to see what constitutional imperative has brought it to the Floor of the House. I hope that the other place will do a genuine job of forcing the Government to come back and make some proper amendments, because I think that there are some real issues.

These are not issues that just I have concerns about. We have had the most bizarre and unlikely coalition. The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency has said of the Bill:

“It only applies to consultant lobbyists whose business is mainly lobbying. It would exclude those for whom lobbying is only a small part of the business. This could apply to a large number of significant lobbyists-for-hire”.

At the other end of the debate, the Public Relations Consultants Association polled its own members and found that only 1% of activity was covered from under 20% of the organisation’s concern. Even the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who I see in his place paying close attention, has said:

“The Bill tries to exclude people whose main business is not lobbying, but it does not define what constitutes a mainly non-lobbying business.”

The hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) has also criticised the loophole, saying:

“I suspect all that this new rule will do is ensure that in some instances big corporate interests will bring their lobbying activity back ‘in house’. Instead of hiring a public affairs consultancy, the big defence, banking and energy interests will give the work to their public affairs department. And because their main business is defence, or banking, or energy, they can safely ignore those provisions of the Bill.”

It is a dreadful state of affairs when two Government Back Benchers—I use the word “Government” slightly loosely, perhaps—are criticising the Bill. I hope the Minister will take on board the genuine concerns that have been expressed.

We have been told that the intention is not to exclude people. To pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), let me give one example of a significant public affairs consultancy—MHP Communications. I should declare that I have met MHP Communications representatives, who have seen me about developments in my constituency. They conducted themselves appropriately at all times.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I am suggesting a clear, simple and recognised threshold to provide a guide for where to put a de minimis provision.

Amendment 77 will alter clause 2 to include the registration of a person under the VAT Act as a further requirement to be satisfied in the definition of carrying on the business of consultant lobbying. That will exclude those who are not VAT registered from the requirement to register as a consultant lobbyist.

Amendment 82 will remove the provision in clause 22 exempting those who are not VAT registered from the requirement to pay the subscription charge relating to entry on the register.

Amendment 83 will provide that regulations could be made allowing HMRC to share its records relating to registration under the VAT Act with a registrar. Clearly, that is an important resource to assist the registrar. Associated amendments make the necessary refinements to the references to employees throughout this part of the Bill. The exclusion of those who are not VAT registered from the requirement to register means that a number of references to employees should be adjusted to recognise that employees can never be VAT registered for their employer, a fact that I fear the hon. Member for Hemsworth knew nothing about.

Another group of Government amendments relates to the definition of incidental lobbying.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but there is a considerable amount of noise coming mainly from behind the Chair, mostly from people who have not paid any attention whatsoever to the debate. The Committee wishes to hear not only the Minister, but the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman in her reply, which has yet to follow.

[Miss Smith]

Thank you, Sir Roger. I will be as quick as I can in making a few points about Government amendments.

It has always been the Government’s intention that those who communicate with Government in a manner incidental to their normal professional activity should not be required to register as consultant lobbyists. These are not the people or organisations that this register is intended to capture. Let me be clear that it is our intention that multidisciplinary firms that run consultant lobbying operations and that lobby in a manner that is not merely incidental to their other activities should be captured. These are the exact professional consultant lobbyists that this register is intended to capture.

We have listened to those who suggested that the exemption in paragraph 3 of schedule 1 was too broad and should be refined, including the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Our amendments 91, 93, 94 and 95 will refine that paragraph by substituting the insubstantial proportion test with one that focuses on incidental lobbying. Specifically, paragraph 3 will provide that a person does not carry on the business of consultant lobbying if they are part of a non-lobbying organisation or if the lobbying communication they make is incidental to their normal non-lobbying activity.

In conclusion, we are proposing not a fully blown regulator for the industry, but a solution to an identified problem. I am sure that Members throughout the Committee will have read the US federal lobbying regulation manual, “The Lobbying Manual”, which runs to 894 pages. That is what we wish to avoid. I therefore oppose various amendments but support those tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I look forward to hearing what the Opposition think they can do better now than they did for the past 13 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 3, page 1, line 6, leave out ‘or’ and insert ‘and’.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 4, page 1, line 8, after ‘lobbyists’, insert—

‘and

(c) the person has signed up to the Register’s Code of Conduct.’.

Amendment 136, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end add—

‘(3) The Minister is under a duty to ensure the independence of the Registrar.

(4) The Minister is under a duty to ensure the Registrar is adequately financed and resourced so that the Registrar can exercise its functions under this Part.’.

Amendment 31,  in schedule 2, page 53, line 1, after ‘Minister’, insert—

‘after consultation with the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons.’.

Amendment 138, page 53, line 2, at end insert—

‘(1A) The power of the Minister under sub-paragraph (1) is exercisable only following the approval of a proposed appointment by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.’.

Amendment 34, in clause 4, page 3, line 21, at end insert—

‘(c) the approximate value of the registered person’s spending on their lobbying activities for each quarter.’.

Amendment 36, in clause 5, page 3, line 37, after ‘information’, insert ‘and spending on lobbying’.

Amendment 137, page 3, line 38, at end insert—

‘(aa) details of any communications or meetings with a Minister of the Crown or Permanent Secretary that do not fall within section 2(3), and.’.

Amendment 56, page 3, line 47, at end add—

‘(c) if the registered person engaged in lobbying in the quarter in return for payment (whether or not the payment has been received), the purpose and subject matter of the lobbying services provided by the registered person; and

(d) if the registered person received payment in the quarter to engage in lobbying (whether or not the lobbying has been done) the purpose and subject matter of the lobbying services provided by the registered person.’.

Amendment 152, page 3, line 47, at end add—

‘(c) if the registered person received payment in the quarter to engage in lobbying (whether or not the lobbying has been done) the amount of payment received.’.

Amendment 37, page 3, line 47, at end insert—

‘(4) Spending on lobbying for each quarter is the approximate value of the amount a registered person spends on their lobbying activity for each quarter.’.

Amendment 40, in clause 10, page 5, line 28, leave out from ‘offence’ to end of line 30.

Amendment 42, in clause 14, page 7, line 39, at end insert—

‘or breaches the code of conduct’.

Amendment 43, in clause 22, page 10, line 31, leave out ‘seek to’.

New clause 1—Duty to apply a code of conduct—

‘(1) The Registrar shall, after wide consultation with relevant stakeholders including the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons, prepare a code of conduct with which all registered persons will be required to comply, and may produce revised codes from time to time;

(2) The Secretary of State must lay any professional lobbying code of conduct before Parliament.

(3) Any code shall provide that any inappropriate financial relations between registered persons and parliamentarians are strictly forbidden.

(4) An organisation or person included on the register which contravenes the provisions of the code of conduct shall be liable to civil penalties as set out in Section 14.’.

New clause 2—Disclosure of names of professional lobbyists—

‘The Government must disclose the names of all persons who are professional lobbyists that work for them, including senior persons—

(a) who are employed directly with the UK Government;

(b) who are formally employed by the political party or parties that form the Government;

(c) who are employed on a temporary basis as consultants; and

(d) contractors.’.

New clause 7—Professional lobbyists taking up employment in government—

‘(1) Any professional lobbyist registered under section 1 taking up a senior position in Government will—

(a) have their appointment scrutinised by a Committee, and

(b) have restrictions placed on their activities as set out in subsection (3).

(2) “Senior position in Government” means a position as senior civil servant or their equivalent.

(3) The Minister, after consultation with relevant stakeholders, may make regulations about the activities set out in subsection (1)(b).’.

Clause stand part.

[Mr Thomas]

I rise to speak to the amendments tabled in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Given the lack of time for debate that Ministers are allowing for this part of the Bill, let me rattle through the case for the amendments.

Amendment 3—the lead amendment in the group—is a probing amendment to explore why Ministers do not want the employer of a lobbyist to be revealed. We were led to believe that the motivation behind the Bill was to make the lobbying industry more transparent. Making it harder to understand who the employer of a person engaged in consultant lobbying is will hardly achieve that objective.

Let us take the example of the lobbying firm that has provided so much of the backdrop to debates on the Bill. If Crosby Textor suddenly decided that, after all, it is a firm of consultant lobbyists, the individuals working as consultant lobbyists for Crosby Textor would not, under the Bill, need to record by whom they are employed. Given the widespread concerns about what and who Crosby Textor lobbies for, it seems reasonable that the individual consultant lobbyists who work for Crosby Textor should reveal who employs them. The Opposition want transparency, and the Minister says she wants the same thing. We therefore want to hear more on why Ministers do not believe that revealing employers is required.

In speaking to amendment 4, I shall also refer to new clause 1 and amendment 42. Unless the Minister makes a dramatic speech, the Opposition will press amendment 4 to a Division. New clause 1, and amendments 4 and 42, require the establishment of a code of conduct. Such a code of conduct would be introduced after full consultation with all relevant stakeholders. It would have as its top line the need to avoid any inappropriate financial relations between registered persons and parliamentarians. It would also, of course, be available for parliamentary scrutiny.

The absence of a code of conduct from the Bill means there is currently no mechanism for removing or taking other sanctions against consultants who act in an unethical manner. Indeed, as the excellent Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has pointed out, if there is no code of conduct at the end of the Bill’s passage through both Houses, we will have the bizarre situation whereby the registrar can punish lateness in providing or submitting information, but cannot punish unethical behaviour. Arguably, the absence of a code of conduct means that some on the register will describe themselves as registered or approved without having to meet any minimum standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

There are so many possibilities where a contribution might have been made, and where no contribution could have been made, we would have been no worse off. We managed to accumulate a wealth of evidence. Let us not forget that in a period of about four working days, my Select Committee produced a report for the benefit of Members in all parts of the House. We worked very hard and received 81 organisations throughout the UK, which are listed at the back of the report—not just anybody, but people who had a real interest. It was surprising to see how much interest was generated among people who were a little afraid about what is in part 2, which we will consider tomorrow. I hope we will consider it tomorrow in a slightly more seemly way.

Today’s debate is to conclude at 10 pm and we have got through only two groups of amendments. That is an abuse and it is disrespectful to the House. There are eight amendments that I tabled or with which I am associated that we will not reach, and there are many, many others tabled by Members in all parts of the Committee. These are not trivial matters. They are not fillers, as though we did not have much to think about over the past few days so we bunged in a few odd amendments.

Those amendments relate to extremely serious issues, which will not now get an airing in this Committee—issues such as whether Ministers and permanent secretaries should be the only people who should count as being lobbied. It has been alluded to, but the group of amendments relating to that, which are the result of some solid work, may I say, by my Committee and by colleagues in all parts of the House, will not be taken seriously. They will not be listened to and colleagues will not be able to make those points, to have Ministers listen to them and to improve the Bill.

The rights of Members of Parliament are also a very important area. Are Members of Parliament lobbyists? Are they lobbied? Should they be registered? How does this relate to our interaction with constituents? I know that these issues are of great concern to the Leader of the House, the Deputy Leader of the House and the Government. That group of amendments, too, will not be reached tonight.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is very experienced and he knows perfectly well that he may not debate issues that may or may not be reached later. We are debating a group of amendments.

[Mr Allen]

Therefore it is important that the issues in this group are debated. That is what I want to get to, as you kindly indicated, Sir Roger, after that preamble.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I am exceedingly grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it gives me the opportunity to look down the selection list. I am grateful to the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, who has worked with parliamentary counsel to produce amendment 151. The Government would like to support that amendment tonight because we believe that that important area of the Bill needs further clarification. Under the amendment, the existing MP exemption—

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I think it only right to say that amendment 151 will not be moved because it will not be called unless the Government choose to move it.

[Miss Smith]

I will beg to move the amendment at the appropriate time.

[Mr Allen]

That is a wonderful precedent. I have a large number of other amendments on the Order Paper. I am very happy to be the midwife and to hand those over to the hon. Lady.

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. Nice try.

[Miss Smith]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

With that, I will finish speaking so that it is possible for another Back Bencher to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will be aware that we are pressed for time and that the mover of the amendment must have the opportunity to respond. I am sure that she will bear that in mind.

[Caroline Lucas]

I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) about the way in which the debate has been organised and the high number of amendments that will not be scrutinised at all. Ironically, the Prime Minister brought forward the Bill saying that he wanted to avoid the next scandal. I am sure I am not alone in thinking that the way in which we are being forced to handle this debate is in itself a scandal.

I will speak briefly to amendment 152, the purpose of which is to bring depth to the Bill by focusing on financial disclosure. I believe that there should be a requirement to disclose a good-faith estimate of how much money has been spent on lobbying activity. The Minister said that the purpose of the Bill was to shine the light of transparency on lobbying. To my mind, we would be doing only half the job if we did not ensure that we had an idea of what was being spent on lobbying. I will try again to persuade her that requiring information on how much money is spent on lobbying on a quarterly basis would be proportionate and not burdensome.

The money being spent is the clearest indication of how committed an industry or organisation is to influencing a particular issue. It is also a clear indicator that Government decision making on an issue must be carefully scrutinised. Money also reveals the scale, disparities and trends in lobbying, and financial disclosure of the amount spent on lobbying would help us assess the spending gap between business and civil society groups, for example, or multinationals and non-profit organisations lobbying for Government contracts. Such a requirement need not be a bureaucratic burden. Work by Unlock Democracy on a mock filing showed that it would take about 20 minutes to prepare. That already happens in the US, and I have heard no good argument for it not to happen here. As a result, in the US it is much easier to see what is going on.