Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Simon Hughes Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
It is good to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I am still hoping to get to Derry/Londonderry, the great city of culture for 2013, before the end of the year, but I am conscious that time is running out—[Interruption.] My speech will not take us to that date.
I want to make a couple of comments on these new clauses and amendments on timetabling and scope. I thank the Leader of the House for the letter that he sent and the amendments that the Government have tabled, which we shall reach later, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House for his conversations, briefings and help in dealing with the Bill.
I assume that those on the Front Bench accept the spirit of amendment 65, although I do not assume that they will accept the amendment itself. It states that the Bill will not be enacted until all Committees of both Houses that are reporting on it have reported. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—our Chair is also in the Chamber now—and it is common knowledge that we are considering the Bill. It is no secret that we hope to complete our work this month—we are doing it as quickly as we can—and to publish our report. The amendment is effectively asking the Government to take into account the deliberations of the cross-party Committee of both Houses and any other Committees before there is further detailed consideration of the Bill. I hope that there will be general acceptance of that.
I am not competent to speak about the details of new clause 2, but the Electoral Commission, to which we are grateful for its up-to-date briefing, has an open mind on it—at least, that is how it expresses it. The commission’s summary states that
“we expect that as far as possible Parliament will wish the Government to set out a thorough assessment of the likely impact of the provisions in Part 2 before the Bill is passed.”
I assume that the Government will do that and that the new clause seeks to deal with elections and campaigns other than the general election in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. They are clearly relevant and we must consider them. My reading is clear: the Electoral Commission has not come down specifically in favour of or against the new clause in its briefing, although it has a clear view on other parts of the work before us today.
Wayne David
The right hon. Gentleman has accurately referred to the Electoral Commission’s commentary on new clause 2. The commission expresses the hope that the Government will set out a thorough assessment of the likely impact of the provisions, but as things stand, I am not aware of a firm commitment that the Government intend to do that.
Simon Hughes
That is why my assumption is that, although the Government might not respond directly by accepting the new clause, colleagues on the Front Bench will be able to answer the point made by the Electoral Commission, as there is obviously regular engagement between the Government and the commission. I hope those on the Front Bench will be positive about that point.
It is clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said earlier, that new clause 3 is not supported by the Electoral Commission. For want of other guidance, the Electoral Commission is always the best place to go to for a steer on the appropriate response, so I will not support the new clause.
My concern is that the Government should give time for Committees to report and for their deliberations to be considered and that, when the Electoral Commission expressly supports the Government’s proposals or proposed changes, the Government should be responsive.
Let me make a general point about the timetable. Obviously, the Bill took a huge amount of time in gestation and was then born very quickly—it shot out of the cot, or cradle, or wherever it had been kept—
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
That is often the way.
Simon Hughes
Yes, it is. The Bill was held in dock for a long time, but then somebody suddenly pressed the button and out it came. I do not think that anyone can complain that there has not been enough time in Committee or on Report; the complaint is that, as people know, we have not had the pre-legislative scrutiny that all Bills ideally should have. I know that the Leader of the House would accept that in principle.
We are in the second day on Report and we must have Third Reading, so we cannot now do all the revision and careful scrutiny that we would like to. That is probably true across the House. I am in favour of many of the Bill’s principles, so I do not have issues with some of the changes, but I hope that the Government will ensure that there is the time for that careful consideration and to listen to the voices before the Bill goes from this place to the House of Lords.
A commission has been set up, prompted by the voluntary sector, to be chaired by the Lord Bishop of Oxford, who is a Member of the House of Lords. It is considering these issues and will have a valuable contribution to make, provided it can report soon. I hope, too, that the Government will take seriously what it says.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman outline to the House how he thinks we can have further scrutiny of the Bill between the completion of business today and its progress to the House of Lords?
Simon Hughes
I made it clear that because this is the second and last day on Report and because we must have Third Reading, at this round of our deliberations we cannot do that in this building. Other work is taking place, however, not least in the Joint Committee on which I serve with colleagues from both Houses. We want to report in time for our work to be taken into account up the corridor in the House of Lords. Any amendments made in the Lords must still come back to this place, so I ask the Government to give time for the Committees that are working and have not reported to report and for those reports to be considered by the Government in good time to be seen by colleagues in the Lords and for the independent commission to report and to be seen, provided it gets on with the job quickly.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
Before I tackle new clauses 2 and 3 and the amendments, I welcome the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) to his place. I am not sure whether this is his last appearance in his current position—
Simon Hughes
My right hon. Friend has set out all the things that should be of reassurance, which is very helpful to those in the House and, I hope, outside it. Will he repeat the assurance that he and the Leader of the House are willing, if necessary, to have a further conversation with Stuart Etherington or the commission to make sure, face to face, that what has been said is understood? A great deal of heat and noise has been generated, and at the beginning there might have been some justification for that. The Government are trying to deal with it, but it might be better dealt with by also having some further conversation to make sure that there is dialogue as opposed to just two separate statements in different places.
Tom Brake
I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the doors of the Leader of the House’s office and mine are permanently open to that sort of approach. In fact, the dialogue with the NCVO has been very active and constant, and I am keen to pursue that. The NCVO is, as I stated earlier, at least partially happy and has in the past said that the amendments significantly meet its concerns. There is common ground and we want to ensure that it is developed further.
Mr Lansley
The character of each of those scandals is of a particular kind. We are setting out to ensure that relationships between lobbyists and key decision makers in Government are more transparent in future, so that those who impact on our political system do so in the glare of public life. For most of the things the hon. Gentleman describes, people were trying to seek influence covertly, and in some cases were completely contrary to the law and the codes of conduct of this House and elsewhere, or of government. We must expose those relationships everywhere, where we can, and when people breach the code, we will deal with it.
The Bill has been widely debated in the House and beyond, and I thank Members for sharing their views, because healthy debate is a cornerstone of our democracy. The measures in the Bill have also been misrepresented, and during the passage of the Bill we have fully exposed where those misrepresentations lie. The hon. Member for Nottingham North explained on many occasions in the course of his 190 minutes of offerings that there had not been sufficient scrutiny of the Bill. I gently say to him, however, that one does not take the moral high ground over lack of scrutiny by taking up more time than is needed to explain the issues. [Interruption.] Actually, I think there are relatively few issues, and we have exposed them clearly and answered them fully. I encourage Members in the other place to read the debates. They will see that, as the Bill completed its passage through this House, those issues have been answered, and by virtue of the amendments tabled the Bill has been improved. As is always the case, all is capable of improvement.
Simon Hughes
There can be no serious objection to parts 1 and 3 of the Bill, but there are clearly continuing concerns about part 2. The Leader of the House has committed to considering the report by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee when it is published, but will he confirm the undertaking that he and his colleagues will work to ensure that the misrepresentations are dealt with, and that the concerns—and some uncertainties—can be discussed with Ministers, the voluntary sector and others, including the Electoral Commission, in the days ahead?
Mr Lansley
I hope I will be clear, just as I thought my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House was clear during discussions on part 2 of the Bill. We had a number of meetings with a range of organisations, and we listened carefully to points raised in this House and by those organisations. I met the National Council for Voluntary Organisations before Committee stage, and I was clear that we would make changes to the definition of expenditure for electoral purposes, to remove what it regarded as the risks and uncertainty associated with those definitions. It was not our intention to change in substance the test for what constitutes expenditure for electoral purposes, albeit that we intend—rightly, I think—to introduce greater transparency by including the range of controlled activities in a way consistent with recommendations by the Electoral Commission in its regulatory review.
It is important for us to have a registration threshold, so that those who want to spend a significant amount of money to influence electoral outcomes do so openly. They will not be prevented from doing that, but they will have to do it in a transparent way. It is important to get big money out of trying to influence electoral outcomes. It is therefore important to bring down the threshold, and for it to be disaggregated so that it cannot be spent disproportionately in individual constituencies or small geographic areas.
We did not want to change the test, in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, that only expenditure that could reasonably be regarded as intended to procure or promote the electoral success of a party or candidate should be controlled expenditure. That will still be true. In fact, it will be even more narrowly true, because we have taken out the strand relating to enhancing the standing of political parties at relevant elections, as it was capable of being used to create uncertainty.
Members have quoted from the letter by Sir Stuart Etherington, the chief executive of NVCO. I urge them to read it carefully. It says that there is uncertainty associated with the definition in the 2000 Act, and that that continues to be the case. It is the job of the Electoral Commission—taking the test we have here, which is as clear as we could make it—to inform organisations through the guidance it produces. We stand ready to work with the Electoral Commission. It is an independent organisation and it is for it to decide how it goes about that task, but we could not have made it any clearer.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Simon Hughes Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Allen
I would be pleased to do so. My Select Committee, composed of Members of all parties, pulled together the full list of those who gave us evidence, and we published it. On the specific point that the hon. Lady mentions, my report heard from interested people ranging from a former chief executive of five trade associations, Mark Boleat, the Information Commissioner’s Office and Spinwatch, which was on one particular wing of the argument, to academics such as Dr Hogan, Professor Murphy and Dr Chari, to Iain Anderson, the deputy chairman of the Association of Professional and Political Consultants, the Committee on Standards in Public Life—mentioned earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley—and the list goes on and on. Many people and organisations in all parts of the lobbying industry gave evidence to the Committee, and there was a surprising degree of consensus on the issue of what might happen, particularly in relation to information provided in the register.
This is another missed opportunity. First the Government missed the opportunity to tackle some of the big issues involved in what the public regard as lobbying; now, by ramming the Bill through the House of Commons at such a late stage like a bull charging at a gate and by leaving any effective scrutiny to the other place, they have failed to cash in on the good will that exists among organisations in the lobbying business which might be expected to be at daggers drawn.
In fact—partly as a result of a process of discussion and debate in which my Committee played its part, but partly because of public interest in the issue—people began to say things such as “Let us try to find a sensible way forward. Let us find some basic steps on which we can all agree.” Perhaps the issue could be revisited in a couple of years when things had settled down, or perhaps cases could be responded to as they arose when loopholes were identified.
No one ever expects a measure to be perfect initially. I think that we missed that chance, that possibility of consensus. We suggested that there could be a pause, certainly in respect of clause 2, and that we, or at any rate a Committee of the House, could—within a set time such as six months, and not as a means of delay—bring back to the House a fully fledged Bill that would command consensus among all those with an interest, rather than a Bill which, sadly, commands consensus because no one likes it.
The Bill has no friends. It has a driver in the Leader of the House, but no one is saying “Thank goodness for this Bill.” There are no people out in the streets marching up and down saying “Thank goodness Parliament has got it right.” I think that it reflects badly on the reputation of this place, and we are seen to be failing the public, when a public issue such as anxiety about lobbying can be put to bed in a rational way but we produce a Bill that has so many loopholes, one of which relates to the information provided in the register.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I have just observed that other members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights are not in the Chamber. Although I did not attend the last meeting, I know that it is in the public domain that the Chair of the Committee wrote to the Leader of the House expressing similar concern about speed and lack of scrutiny. The report has not been written and I am therefore not at liberty to reveal the likely proposals, but I think that there is a fairly widespread cross-party view that more time would produce a better and more comprehensive Bill.
Mr Allen
I think that if I am allowed to speak for long enough in replying to the right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Human Rights Committee may appear from somewhere, and may be able to inform the House of the Committee’s view on whether the Bill, as currently constituted, should be subject to a pause so that it can be examined effectively in the context of the human rights aspects to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
Simon Hughes
Like my right hon. Friend, I am keen that we do not have some great bureaucratic invention to deal with this issue. There is one thing I do not understand, however. If a public relations company that has 500 clients comes to speak to my right hon. Friend or a Secretary of State or a permanent secretary, what would be the difficulty in making it a requirement that the company makes it clear which client it is coming to speak on behalf of? Otherwise, one does not get very much further by just knowing which company is making the representation.
Mr Lansley
My right hon. Friend, characteristically, makes a better point than those on the Opposition Front Bench did. It is consistent with the approach that we are taking, but I respectfully suggest that we should not include such a requirement in the Bill, as amendment 100 seeks to do, because the register is not the place where those meetings are recorded. They are recorded in ministerial diaries. The issue is getting transparency in ministerial diaries.
We are the first Government to publish details of those meetings and other transparent relationships. We have extended the scope of that, not only in lobbying but in relation to the media; we publish that information. The Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), picking up the work undertaken by his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), is engaged in ensuring that information provided by Departments provides sufficient detail about the subject of meetings. If one has the register, which discloses who the consultant lobbyist is and their clients, and Ministers’ diaries, which are clear about the purpose of a meeting, one should be able to see the character of the relationship —who is lobbying whom, and for what.
Simon Hughes
I completely understand that, and I commend the Government, as my right hon. Friend knows, for the change in the rules about the publication of diaries, which is very welcome. May I ask him a practical question, which may answer my concerns and those of others? What will be the intended delay between the meeting and the diary publication or the appearance in the register? People often need that knowledge soon after the event—not a long time after, when it may be too late to be relevant.
Mr Lansley
We have already made a commitment that Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ diaries for each quarter would be published by the end of the subsequent quarter.
Chi Onwurah
With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), following her decision to focus on her constituency and resign from the Cabinet Office. I wish her well, although those good wishes do not extend to success in the next general election campaign.
Everyone in the Opposition certainly felt for the hon. Lady, however, and I am sure that she is glad to be out from under this garland of an albatross, this dog’s dinner, this lobbyists’ charter—just some of the ways in which the Bill has been memorably described. Although there might be some debate about how best to describe the Bill—perhaps a dog’s dinner of an albatross—there is absolute unanimity that it is a total mess. Rarely have so many diverse groups been united in agreement—truly, the Government can claim to be a force for unity in the country in regards to the opposition they manage to inspire.
New clause 7 would ensure that some critical groups and individuals are not caught up in the Bill. One of the reasons the Bill attracts so much opposition is that it stands up for the powerful against the weak. A small firm of lobbyists, perhaps specialising in green technology on behalf of social enterprises that cannot afford to hire expensive lobbyists, will be caught up by the Bill and forced to pay possibly thousands to be on the register, but a 150-person-strong public affairs team in a big six energy company will absolutely not be caught. As the Public Relations Consultants Association has said, fewer organisations will be required to sign this register than are currently on the voluntary register. As a result, these consultancies, which will mainly be small and medium-sized enterprises because larger ones tend not to be exclusively lobbying businesses, will each be required to pay potentially thousands a year—not my estimate—mainly to register a list of names of staff and clients, which most of them already do.
With this Bill, it is hard to distinguish between the result of poor drafting and poor judgment on the part of the Government. Only a Government of startling incompetence could draft a so-called lobbying Bill that captures only 1% of lobbying activity. In an apparent attempt to address that, the Government have tabled some amendments, but as the chair of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, Iain Anderson, said recently:
“The amendments have not changed the scope of the Bill's impact on the lobbying industry. It shows that they are not listening. There has been no change to the definition of those who lobby, and who they lobby. Rational arguments and Parliament’s wider concerns are being ignored.”
So there we have it. Rational arguments and Parliament’s wider concerns are being entirely ignored in the drafting and redrafting of the Bill.
It is not just lobbyists, however, who are queuing up to mock the Bill. In Committee, very few Government Back Benchers stood up to defend the Bill, and I see that there are hardly any here this evening. I hope that such as are here will support us in trying to change the Bill. In fact, not a single Government Back Bencher spoke in support of the Bill in Committee.
New clause 7 and its dependent amendments would make it clear who should be excluded from lobbying regulation and ensure that certain historic duties in relationships were not damaged. Paragraph (a) of the new clause would ensure that any person who was
“a constituent contacting or communicating with their Member of Parliament”
was not defined as being engaged in lobbying. We have already talked about the importance of the role of Members of Parliament in representing the interests of their constituents. We are all here because our constituents elected us to represent their views and interests here in Parliament, and the word “lobbying” relates to the ability of people to come here and find their representative —in the Lobby, perhaps—and ask them to do something or to vote in a certain way. Technology has changed the way in which we are lobbied, but this incompetently drafted Bill must not cast a shadow on the right of our constituents to lobby us, in whatever way they choose.
I hope that you will forgive me for going off at a slight tangent, Mr Speaker, but some of those new forms of contact and lobbying, including those used by campaign groups such as 38 Degrees, are threatened by part 2 of the Bill, which we shall discuss tomorrow. This leads me to question again whether this is a deliberate attempt to undermine our democracy or merely carelessness and an attempt to rush a Bill on lobbying on to the statute book before the next election, no matter how badly drafted and incompetently set out it might be. It is essential that the link between Members and their constituents should be protected, and not damaged—inadvertently or otherwise—by poor legislation.
Paragraph (b) of the new clause would add a person who was
“making communications solely on his or her own behalf”
to the list of exceptions. Similarly, paragraph (f) would adds a person who was
“making communications without remuneration”.
It is important that people should be allowed to communicate with the Government on their own behalf, and that communication with the Government that is not being paid for should not be disrupted. New clause 7 would ensure that those who were not paid for their lobbying would not have to bear a financial burden at the expense of big corporations and large firms. Nor should that burden fall solely on small and medium-sized enterprises, which is why we have tabled separate amendments widening the scope of the register.
Paragraph (c) of the new clause would exempt a person who was
“responding to a government consultation exercise”
and paragraph (d) would exempt a person who was
“responding to an invitation to submit information or evidence”
to a parliamentary Select Committee or Public Bill Committee. Similarly, paragraph (g) would exempt a person who was
“responding to or complying with a court order”.
Paragraph (e) would exempt a person
“acting in an official capacity on behalf of a government organisation”.
I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that those scenarios should not be caught up by the Bill simply because of poor drafting.
The other amendments in the group seek to extend the range of lobbying activities covered by what is supposedly a lobbying Bill. Amendments 68 and 69 would extend the range of such activities. Amendments 71 and 73 would widen the scope of the Bill. Amendment 71 in particular would widen its scope to include e-mails, an electronic form of communication that the Government might not value but which can certainly be used for lobbying. Amendments 74 and 75 would widen the scope of who it would be possible to lobby. Amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, would ensure that it was not only permanent secretaries who could be lobbied.
I am eager to hear the response of the Leader of the House to the points raised. We have seen this evening a lack of willingness to consider making changes to the Bill, despite the almost complete unanimity of the lobbying industry—it stands strangely at one in this—in viewing this Bill as badly drafted and likely to reduce transparency in an industry that is well in need of increased transparency. That is contrary to what the Bill set out to do and contrary to the promise in both coalition parties’ manifestos to increase transparency. As I say, I am eager to hear the right hon. Gentleman’s reply. I am not sure how the Government intend to offer the protections that we seek without our amendment, but I look forward to hearing the right hon. Gentleman address the concerns that I have raised.
Simon Hughes
I shall make just a brief point in support of my amendment 116, which would make a simple change to list of people who, when lobbied, are to be subject to appropriate registration. At the moment, the list includes a Minister of the Crown or a permanent secretary, and my proposal is to add special advisers to that list. They are clearly a group of people known to be part of the political system operating out there as a bridge between Ministers, Departments and the public. It seems to me that they are naturally perceived to be people who can receive messages from lobbyists and pass them on to their political bosses. It would be good politics and not a complication to add this group of people to the list. I know that so far this has been considered but rejected by the Government. I hope that they will be open to the possibility of adding it either tonight or, if not, when the Bill goes to the other place for further consideration.
Mr Speaker
Has the right hon. Gentleman finished? He has. I thank him and call Mr Paul Flynn.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Simon Hughes Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Some of us are very pleased that the Government are introducing a Bill to deal with transparency of lobbying, which the previous Government never did. There has been an enormous amount of hype and overstatement, but perhaps some improvements could be and need to be made. May I have a clear undertaking that next week’s Committee stage will be open to amendments from across the House, including from relevant Select Committees with an interest in and knowledge of the subject?
Tom Brake
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Clearly, the Government have stated on a number of occasions that we are very keen to work with charities, non-governmental organisations and, indeed, Select Committees to ensure that their views are taken into account. That is very much our intention. We also want to ensure that the issue of parliamentarians and the role we play will be clarified very clearly in relation to this Bill.
Business of the House
Simon Hughes Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will know that matters relating to growth were entirely relevant to yesterday’s Queen’s Speech debate on growth and the economy and that jobs and business, including export matters, were debated last Friday—I am sure he was in his place for that debate—so the subject of exports has been relevant to debates in the past week. He is right, though, that exports are essential. If we are to get growth, we cannot rely, as has been the case in the past, on debt-fuelled growth, whether Government debt or consumer debt. We need more balanced and sustainable growth, not least by winning in the global race, and that is what we have set out to do.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
To give the House a break from the Leader of the House’s colleagues’ obsessing about Europe, may we have, before the summer break, a serious debate about the Commonwealth countries and south Asia? There is a controversial Commonwealth conference in Sri Lanka, there has been a recent terrible tragedy with wider implications and civil disorder in Bangladesh, there is a new Government of Pakistan, there are difficulties in the Maldives and there is an Indian Government with issues of civil disorder and the death penalty. I think that many colleagues would appreciate an extended debate on those countries and their policies.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making an important point, not least in referring to the tragic events in Dhaka, by which many of us have been deeply shocked. All those issues, including the elections in Pakistan, demonstrate the importance of good governance and democracy in many of these countries. In Pakistan, we have seen for the first time the democratic election of a new Government following a full term from a previous democratically elected Government, which is positive. I hope that there will be an opportunity for a debate on all these countries, but it might be appropriate if he or others were to seek such a debate from the Backbench Business Committee. The prospect of the upcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting would be a good basis for an application.
Sittings of the House (Wednesday 17 April)
Simon Hughes Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
On behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I support fully the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House.
Whatever our views about Baroness Thatcher and her policies, it is entirely appropriate that tomorrow the nation does not have Parliament sitting at the same time as an important national funeral. It would also be entirely inappropriate to have a funeral in the morning and for Parliament to come back immediately into a confrontation at the highest level, not least as it would involve the Prime Minister, who follows Baroness Thatcher as leader of the Conservative party.
I would have thought it was in tune with the wishes of every democrat that we will sit tomorrow. Indeed, there is no proposal that we do not sit. Parliament will go on and will do contentious business, as is entirely appropriate, in considering the Finance Bill. I deduce from what the Leader of the House said that there will be Prime Minister’s questions next week and that the people who won the ballot for this week will ask their questions. I hope that that will happen next week as planned.
There will be other times to discuss the other arrangements for tomorrow and the Thatcher legacy, but it is right that we pause in the morning for those who want to pay their respects and continue our business without massive confrontation at 2.30 tomorrow.
business of the house
Simon Hughes Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Thirty years ago this month, I made my maiden speech. I want to make two brief introductory points, and then spend a couple of minutes on the subject on the Order Paper.
First, I want to say thank you to all the people who, for all the time that we have all been here, have looked after us so well in this place: not only the staff employed by the Palace, but the staff who work for us, without whom we could not do our job. If that is not enough and if Members have nothing better to do when the debate finishes, we are celebrating my having been here 30 years, and everyone is very welcome to come to the Attlee Suite for a drink. We are there until 9 o’clock. I want to couple with that a thanks to my head of office, George Turner, who is retiring and going to other things, having seen through the last general election and the first half of this Parliament. I am very grateful to him for his work.
Secondly, I was prompted to say something on a subject that has nothing to do with the main one: the Revenue and Customs consultation on whether tax offices should be closed or a face-to-face service should continue. I just want to make a very simple point. Many of us can use the internet and e-mail, but many constituents—not just the elderly—sometimes need to talk to somebody. I make a plea that the Government understand that, whether with careers, benefits or tax advice, doing it on the phone or via the internet is not always the answer. We must make sure that we keep face-to-face provision.
The substantive issue I want to address is the Thames tunnel proposed by Thames Water to deal with London’s sewage. I have been campaigning to clean up the Thames all my political life. Our sewers are overflowing. The wonderful Victorian sewer system cannot cope with the vast size of London and the now increasingly intermittent and heavy rain. As colleagues will know, every time it rains, water pours through the drains and gutters and floods the sewers, which overflow into the Thames. Some 83 million cubic metres of storm water, mixed with raw sewage—a horrible figure—went into the Thames last year. That hardly bears thinking about. The European Community has taken action. It is prosecuting the UK for failing to meet the terms of our waste water directive. I, like all other colleagues with riverside constituencies or in the Thames Water catchment area, have therefore questioned what the solution is.
The current solution is to pour millions of tonnes of concrete into building a super-sewer through the Thames to intercept the outflows from the sewerage system. That will be very expensive, costing an average of £80 a year for all of Thames Water’s household customers, and it will be hugely disruptive. In my constituency, for example, one site might be worked on for up to seven years. In addition, this solution deals with only one problem. It will efficiently keep sewage out of the Thames, but it will do nothing else.
Other countries across the world are doing things differently now. Places such as Detroit and Philadelphia and places in Europe started to think about building tunnels but have realised that greener alternatives may be better. Instead of building a big tunnel, Philadelphia now has small interventions: much more porous surfaces on roads, drives and car parks; and smaller sewage collection tanks across the city, rather than in a central place. People in those places believe that what they call a blue-green solution is a better solution and it allows parks to flourish, with the transformation of the city into a wholly greener environment. Such a solution also produces many more jobs at the lower skill levels more quickly than one big tunnel project does. Philadelphia and London may not be the same, but Greater Philadelphia has a huge population, just as London does.
I have had helpful engagement with colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Treasury and with the Minister for Government Policy. My plea to the Government is that we look at the blue-green experiences elsewhere. We should look at what has happened in Philadelphia and other cities. It is not too late to have an alternative to a super-sewer down the middle of the Thames. I hope that we can pursue an alternative. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will relay back to Ministers that that is very much supported by the community and that the Thames tunnel can be replaced by a greener, more sustainable and more cost-effective solution. Happy Easter to you, Mr Speaker, and do not forget the drink later, if you are thirsty.
Mr Speaker
We will not, and your good wishes are reciprocated, Mr Hughes. Thank you.
Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme) ((No. 3)
Simon Hughes Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will note that it is a matter for hon. Members to determine to what extent they want to make progress on the next group of amendments, and the rate at which they make progress depends on the character of the debate. That is often true when we consider Report stages. The extent to which later groups of amendments can be considered depends on the time that Members choose to take in debating earlier groups. It may, of course, be that the time to consider amendments relating to press conduct will not occupy all the time available.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I hope that the Leader of the House will remember that I and others have suggested that he might look with colleagues at the very simple principle that when we use up some time for other business on a Report and Third Reading day, we have injury time to replace it, so that there is an automatic carry-over to give us the guaranteed time that we were expecting.
Mr Lansley
I do recall my right hon. Friend making that point previously. I simply say that it is an inflexible approach. It is our intention to assist the House in the way we structure programme motions, and that is precisely why this programme motion has been constructed around extending two hours beyond the moment of interruption. I emphasise that we are now four hours and 40 minutes away from the closure of the debate. If a normal Report stage falls on a Monday, it is not unusual for there to be two statements or an urgent question and a statement, which takes the House from 3.30 pm to about 5.30 pm, at which point we are four and a half hours away from the moment of interruption on that day, so I stress that we are not an unusual length of time away from the moment of interruption for a debate on Report.
Business of the House
Simon Hughes Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
Members will know the structure of the debate on Monday, and what is important is that, as was made clear yesterday and has been confirmed today, they will have the opportunity to have that debate. I took the trouble to repeat what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box, so that Members are aware of what is now planned.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. It is extremely regrettable that the all-party talks on Leveson have broken down, and extremely regrettable that the Prime Minister is no longer willing to take part in them. I am clear on behalf of my colleagues here—and, I think, the official Opposition and other parties—that we do not think a simple charter, without seeking to implement Leveson as recommended, will be at all sufficient. Will the Leader of the House elaborate on Monday’s business? Given that it is likely that other amendments will be tabled—they are actively being constructed at this moment—can he make sure there is sufficient time to debate not just a Conservative amendment but other amendments? That means we will not have a short day at all, because some of us are determined to get it right and not dishonour our pledge made after the Leveson report.
Mr Lansley
My right hon. Friend will have been listening carefully to what I said in my statement. I freely acknowledge that we do not always satisfy everybody in terms of the time made available, but I did say in my statement that colleagues must expect business on Monday to go beyond the moment of interruption, and I fear that will have to be the case. That will allow a debate, and without dwelling on precisely how we achieve that, my and my colleagues’ purpose, through the usual channels, will be to ensure that this House can have the debate—including the votes—that will enable it to resolve the issue, I hope very positively, so that all of us who are concerned to ensure that the Leveson report is implemented in principle see that happen. The Prime Minister set out some very clear proposals that will enable that to happen. I do not suggest for one moment that we will vote on those and not on other amendments, if others are presented. But the House should be given that opportunity.
HEALTH
Simon Hughes Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The hon. Gentleman’s time has run out.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for presiding over our last debate before Christmas. I have one specific subject that I want to raise, and a couple of very little things that I shall mention at the end.
A lot of my constituency casework—about 40%—relates to the Home Office and to the UK Border Agency, and many of the cases involve people who are here legitimately and who want to renew their visas. The process is simply not working, and we need to sort that out. All sorts of people are affected, including people who are working here and need to renew their visa in order to carry on doing their job, and people who came here as spouses and need to renew their status to be able to continue to live with their wife, husband or partner.
People can choose how to apply to renew their visas. They can apply by post, or in person after booking an appointment online. The applications are not free. The minimum cost is about £300 and the maximum is about £2,000, so people are making a significant contribution. Both application systems have problems, and they are causing my constituents, and those of many other colleagues, severe inconvenience. It is possible to use the premium same-day service, and it costs between £300 and £400 more to apply in person than to apply by post.
My constituents tell me that the system often releases new appointments at midnight, which is inconvenient, and because everyone logs on to the website at midnight, the system regularly crashes. The website also has basic technical errors. One constituent, a friend of mine named Selcuk Akinci, found that it was offering appointments only for 2020, which was not particularly useful. There are rarely any appointments available within two months, although that fact is not advertised anywhere. Most people, quite reasonably, think about applying to extend their stay only one or two months before their current visa is due to expire. Many therefore find that they cannot get an appointment before their leave expires. They then have to apply by post, which often means a six-month wait without being able to travel. People will not have expected that, and it can cause real problems for them, especially if they need to visit family regularly or if their work involves frequent travel. This problem can often prevent people from doing their job, if they need to travel for work.
Appointments can be made at any of the seven public inquiry offices in the UK. The system tells people where the next available appointment is, and they might find that they have to go from south London to Glasgow or Birmingham. Many people have to travel a long way for their appointment. When they arrive, even if they have booked the premium same-day service, there is no guarantee that the application will be processed on the same day. If the UKBA decides that further checks are necessary, the application is taken out of the premium service queue and put into the postal applications queue, which means that it could take up to six months to process. There is no refund of the premium fee in those circumstances.
People have no way of knowing whether their case will require further checks, which can be triggered by many different factors. There can be genuinely good reasons for carrying out such checks. For example, the person’s name might generate a hit on the police national computer, they might have used a different identity in the past, or they might have no leave to remain at the time of their application. However, further checks are sometimes triggered for bad reasons. Whatever the reason, the person concerned is not allowed to talk to anyone. They are taken out of the premium application process and told that their case has gone into the postal system and that they have to go home and wait, perhaps for more than three months. The case is placed in a kind of “cannot process it today” queue and sent away to a casework centre.
Cases are sometimes referred for further checks for illegitimate reasons. My senior caseworker, James Harper, deals with such cases every day in our Bermondsey office, and I deal with them often. For example, a person’s records might not have been properly updated on the UKBA database. In a recent case, a Ghanaian couple travelled all the way to Birmingham so that the husband could apply to extend his marriage visa in the normal way. However, Mr Kusi’s records had not been properly updated on the Home Office system to show his existing leave to remain. It therefore appeared to the officers at the inquiry office that he had no right to apply, even though he did, and the couple were turned away and left with only three days to apply by post before his existing visa expired. The couple pleaded with the officers to ring the visa office that had dealt with the original application, but were told that that was not possible and that they would have to leave. This is really unacceptable.
In a further case, an Iranian woman in my constituency was applying to extend her stay as the wife of a British citizen. Her case was referred for further checks because it was believed that she did not have high enough English language test scores: level 4.0 on the IELTS—International English Language Testing System—scale in reading and writing. In fact, this was a misinterpretation of the rules, as level 4.0 is required only in speaking and listening. My constituent qualified and her case was sent on, but it was subject to a long delay; only after we intervened did the UKBA admit that an error had been made and then refund the additional premium fee.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
This is quite unusual, but I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman for the second time in two weeks. In the spirit of Christmas, may I offer him another minute?
Simon Hughes
I am grateful, and I hope there will be a lot of common ground on these issues.
When people apply by post, the system often takes far too long. We need a system whereby people have certainty, because they are trying to organise their lives, and UKBA gets its act together.
I offer some suggestions for a solution. First, if someone has paid the premium fee and gone to the office but a question arises, they should not automatically be told, “It’s going off to the casework centre.” A real person should speak to the individual and seek to resolve the question there and then—it cannot be beyond the wit of people to sort that out—as with any other normal customer service operation.
Secondly, when people have paid a premium fee, they are entitled to expect a quicker service than if they had applied by post without paying the premium fee, even if their case is referred for further checks. That does not happen, but it should do, and I hope UKBA will change it, as such cases should not just go into the same pool as the postal applications. Lastly, if it emerges that somebody’s case has been referred for further checks in error, as is frequently the case, there should at least be a partial refund of the premium fee, if not a total refund.
I hope that this part of the UKBA operation, which is clearly not fit for purpose, can get its act together. I will be grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), for taking this matter away with him, passing it to the Home Office and, hopefully, getting it sorted soon.
To finish quickly, I entirely endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz): the Government should be very careful about reducing the judicial review system. We have developed administrative law in this country for a purpose. There are many more Government decisions so we need to be careful about taking away people’s rights to challenge administrative decisions. I shall certainly put in my submission, and I hope that the Government will pay heed to it.
I join in the congratulations to the Government on at last and belatedly announcing the honour for the Arctic convoys veterans. I have regularly raised the issue with Ministers, and constituents have regularly raised it with me. These brave people, who went through the most difficult circumstances to make sure that the lifeline between us and our Russian allies was kept open, did a phenomenal job. They rightfully deserve to be honoured. Thank God some of them are still alive to enjoy that honour.
This year has been not only jubilee year and a fantastic Olympic and Paralympic year, but the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Dickens. I end with a quote from him:
“I will honour Christmas in my heart, and keep it all year.”
Thus said Dickens, who had big Southwark connections. To that, I add greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to all my colleagues, and my thanks to House staff for looking after us so well. I also give my particular best wishes to two people: the oldest woman in Britain, a constituent of mine who became 113 on 7 December and who still lives in her own council flat in Bermondsey; and my older brother, who has a significant birthday tomorrow.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who spoke so eloquently about issues relating to the Border Agency.
I would like, if I may, to raise four issues before the House rises. The first is about a constituent who was recently subjected to a serious assault in his own home. There had been a dispute between neighbours and the perpetrator came round and head-butted and assaulted my constituent, leaving him with a broken nose and requiring ongoing treatment for post-traumatic stress. He obviously had to have his broken nose repaired, but he also had to attend a head injury clinic.
It is regrettable, to say the least, that as a result of the changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, my constituent is no longer eligible for compensation, despite all the trauma he has suffered. It is worth pointing out that under Scots law, the serious assault charge brought against his neighbour is the second most serious of all after attempted murder. I hope the Minister will say whether the Government will reconsider such important cases.
Secondly, it is right that we have heard such eloquent words across the House about the Arctic convoy and Bomber Command. Some men and women will not be spending their Christmas with their families and their loved ones because they are serving our nation, often in very difficult and dangerous places. Not the least of those places is Afghanistan, but we have personnel around the world who are away from home in Germany, Cyprus, the Falklands and elsewhere.
Thirdly, I want to raise the issue of the financial challenges that many of those personnel face. I shall use the example of one of my constituents who is posted in Germany. This soldier is now a sergeant, and she has been in the Army for going on 20 years. When she was first deployed to Germany in 2009, she received £650 a month from the living overseas allowance. At that time, she was mother to one child. While she was a single parent, she received the married/accompanied plus one child element and one “get yourself home” claim for her and her child each year, amounting to £180 for a flight or a ferry. As a result of changes introduced by the Ministry of Defence in the last year, she now receives just £350 a month in allowances, although she now has two children and is married. She is more than £300 a month worse off.
Frankly, there is little difference between the rate of support my constituent receives in comparison with what a single soldier receives. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether the Government view that as entirely equitable. She receives slightly more in travel allowances with three “get yourself home” payments, but each one has dropped in value. Rather than getting £180 for her and her children, she gets £150, which anyone travelling will know does not really cover the cost of travel from Germany back to Scotland. As she rightly points out, this makes it difficult for service personnel to serve our country overseas. It is particularly difficult for those with young families to volunteer for service in places such as Germany.
On the issue of housing for ex-service personnel, we greatly welcome the military covenant as a step in the right direction. Like the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), I had the privilege of serving on the Armed Forces Bill Committee, which took the legislation through the House of Commons. I welcome the fact that many local authorities are now doing more to support service personnel who are leaving the military. I would like to praise Councillor David Ross, convener of housing in Fife council, as he has taken a particular interest in this matter.
We have a problem, however, in that someone from Scotland whose last posting was in England, Northern Ireland or Germany, will not, on leaving the Army or the other two services, go to the top of the housing register. Such people are effectively at the very bottom. Despite giving perhaps 18 or 22 years of service to this country, such people are treated iniquitously. I hope the Minister will talk to his Ministry of Defence colleagues and write to let me know whether the MOD is going to work with English local authorities and the three devolved Administrations to ensure that, no matter where someone’s last posting is—in the UK or overseas—they will receive equal treatment for housing. That is the least we can do for our servicemen and women.
Finally, I want to raise the issue of the regulation of postal services. The Royal Mail continues to be regulated by Ofcom, as you will be aware, yet its rival services do not have the same level of regulation. Local representatives of the Communication Workers Union have met me, as they have done right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, to flag up this concern. The current position allows a firm such as TNT to cherry-pick its services. Whereas Royal Mail has to deliver on six days a week, come wind, rain or—certainly in Scotland—a bit of snow, other companies are not subject to such regulations. The CWU has therefore rightly asked Ofcom to consider taking on a regulatory responsibility for the rival services. They should not be subject to any additional burdens, but they should have the same level of regulation as Royal Mail. Will the Minister write to me, outlining what he is doing to correct this anomaly?
Finally, may I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, your colleagues and the whole House a very safe and prosperous Christmas and new year, and may I also thank all those who support us, including the Hansard writers who turn our utterances into something a bit more coherent, the Doorkeepers, the Clerks and in particular those in the private office of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House, who do so much good work on our behalf, and who have helped the Deputy Leader in getting his responses right for today?
Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Hughes Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Vaizey
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. As he knows, the Department for Communities and Local Government has been successful in stopping local council newspapers competing with local newspapers, but local newspapers are private assets and I would be surprised if they could be registered as community assets under the right to buy. This is the first time I have heard this idea, however, and I will certainly let the Department for Communities and Local Government know that it is being proposed.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Will the Minister talk to our colleagues in the Department for Transport, who are now considering responses to consultation about transport adverts in local papers, to see whether his Department could support the presumption that public notices should be in local papers unless a clear majority of councillors and the public think that there is better way of reaching the public?