Points of Order
Debate between Roger Gale and Gareth Thomas
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As our constituents look ahead to the May day bank holiday, in addition, on 1 May, Gujaratis and Maharashtrians in Harrow, across the UK and globally celebrate Gujarat Day and Maharashtra Day, marking the formation of the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra in India back in 1960. The day is a moment of pride and celebration for all Gujaratis and Maharashtrians. It is a chance to honour the rich history, culture and traditions of both states, and, crucially, the often remarkable contribution of those of all faiths in both communities here in the UK. Mr Deputy Speaker, have you had notice of any intention by the Government to mark the contribution of both communities here in the UK?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. I have not had any indication that the Government intend to make a statement on this subject, but he has placed his point on the record.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Debate between Roger Gale and Gareth Thomas(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.