Business of the House

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Members who have walked through New Palace Yard in recent weeks will have noticed a large number of ministerial cars sitting with their engines running for up to an hour at a time. Not only is that an absurd waste of taxpayers’ money, but it sets an incredibly bad example in the context of climate change. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Department for Transport to announce to all drivers, and confirm to the House, that the practice will cease, given that it is bad for both the environment and the taxpayer?

[Mr Lansley]

I must confess that I had not particularly noticed that, although I spend a lot of time in New Palace yard coming and going, but I will talk to the Department for Transport, which is responsible for the Government Car Service, and see what its view of this is.

Business of the House

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Happily, Mr Speaker, so am I. My hon. Friend may wish to raise the issue with Ministers from the Department for Communities and Local Government when they answer questions early in the new year. In addition, since there will no doubt be Members elsewhere in the House who have similar concerns, my hon. Friend might try to use the good offices of the Backbench Business Committee to seek time for a debate on the issue.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I am sure that during his earlier exchange with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) about the merits of Nigel Farage, the Leader of the House simply forgot to say how delighted we all were that Mr Farage failed to get elected to the seat of Buckingham at the last general election. May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the amendment that stands in the name of the whole Procedure Committee, the chair of the 1922 committee, the chair of the parliamentary Labour party, and other hon. Members, to order No. 9 about the calling of amendments at the end of the Gracious Speech? Can the Procedure Committee therefore invite the Leader of the House to bring it on early in the new year?

[Mr Lansley]

I am, of course, familiar with the amendment to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and it has been on the remaining orders for some time. I confess that time is pressing but the issue is not pressing in that sense. If I may, I will advise the House in due course about when it would be suitable to debate that matter.

Business of the House

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate immediately, but this is an important issue. My hon. Friend will appreciate that during my several years as chair of the all-party group on stroke, it was one of the issues that emerged. We are making progress on a wide front in relation to the improvement of stroke services and on fast identification and treatment of stroke. On prevention, I hope that what my hon. Friend says about AF will be emphasised in our discussions about improving stroke services for the future.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

The overseas territories joint ministerial council took place last week and covered a huge number of issues that are of mutual interest to the UK Government, this Parliament and the overseas territories. Could a Foreign Office Minister be asked to come to the House to give a full statement so that we can hold them to account?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the second joint ministerial council took place in London on 26 November and that its overall theme was jobs and growth. The meeting covered a range of subjects and an ambitious communiqué outlining the commitments made was issued at its conclusion. The United Kingdom’s relationship with the overseas territories is a very important one. The Government would welcome any proposal for a debate on the progress made at the council. The hon. Gentleman may wish to encourage colleagues to go before the Backbench Business Committee at some point to seek time for a debate on the subject in Westminster Hall.

Finances of the House of Commons

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso]

Indeed. I believe my hon. Friend refers to the income generation strand. I intend to refer to that, too, so I invite him to intervene again after I have dealt with it. I suspect that the Chair of the Administration Committee intends to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, and may well speak on this subject, as I know that this Committee has done a considerable amount of work on it.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is giving us a foretaste of his speech, so will he say whether he intends to speak about the cost of maintaining the fabric of the House as well?

[John Thurso]

Indeed. Another of my five points deals with restoration and renewal. Perhaps it would be a good idea if I just got on with it, Mr Speaker!

I was about to clarify the five points on which I wanted to focus: first, pay and contracts; secondly, income generation; thirdly, restoration and renewal; fourthly, the education centre; and, fifthly, Committee resources. There are a huge number of other issues within that. I have with me the last three days-worth of reading provided for me on virtually every subject. I am happy to try to answer any points raised, but I would like to stick mainly to the five points that I have drawn out as being the most important for our consideration today.

On pay and conditions, then, I have said before that we have a very high quality of staff. In my judgment, it is imperative to maintain that, and to do so, we must be exemplary employers. It is indeed the firm intention of both the House of Commons Commission and the Management Board that the House service be regarded as a model employer, using the best practices in employment. As we all know, however, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and it is not so much the intentions that count as how we give effect to them.

Let me deal with our commitment to the London living wage. I may be in danger of getting pelted for what I say, but I pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker, because you have led the drive with the Commission and the Management Board to ensure that we make a full and true commitment to the London living wage. You have provided an important piece of leadership on that issue. Both the chair of the Commission and the chief executive of the House service take the issue of the London living wage extremely seriously. The House is aiming to secure accreditation as a living wage employer from Citizens UK before Christmas this year and to achieve full compliance on all our contracts by April next year. That means our approach goes beyond the accreditation requirements. I can report that as of today all current House staff and all agency staff supplied to the House are paid at least the London living wage, and that contractors with dedicated staff who are based on the estate are paying those staff at least the London living wage, with a small number of exceptions that are currently being addressed and which we anticipate will have been addressed within a very short space of time. The final category is other contractors that provide services to the House. Good progress is being made to ensure they are paying their UK staff at least the London living wage if in London, or the living wage if outside London. I reiterate that we are on course to be accredited by Christmas and we are on course to meet the goal of having everybody, including our contractors, in compliance by next April.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that, with the support of my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, I tabled some parliamentary questions a few months ago about the living wage. At the time, the hon. Gentleman said a small number of new starters—agency staff, I think—were not receiving the living wage in their probationary period. Has that issue now been addressed? If the hon. Gentleman could write to me about that, I would be most grateful.

[John Thurso]

My belief is that that issue has, indeed, been addressed—and I think I have just had a little divine inspiration to confirm that. If, by any mischance, I have misinformed the hon. Gentleman, I will most certainly write to him, but otherwise he may take it that that has indeed been addressed.

The second issue I wish to touch on is what are termed zero-hours contracts. The Commission asked the Finance and Services Committee to look at that issue and prepare advice. We are in the final stages of preparing that advice and it will go to the Commission at its next meeting on Monday, so it is still, as it were, in draft, but I would like, if I may, to outline what the content of that advice is going to be.

In summary, we are advising that the House should not take on zero-hours contracts. Their key feature is that they do not have mutuality of obligation; that is the critical point that came out. We had a fascinating written and oral evidence session involving some very good employers ranging from supermarkets to the Royal Household and others, and what came out clearly was that good employers with good HR practices are not particularly keen on zero-hours contracts because of this lack of mutuality. We came to the firm view that, as that is the principal feature of zero-hours contracts, we should have nothing whatever to do with them.

We further go on to advise that where staff are currently being employed on a casual basis they should be placed on proper contracts that provide for full and appropriate employee rights with mutuality of obligation, and that that should be supported by best practice and, in particular, by the adoption of a code of conduct. I was particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend—if I may refer to him as that—the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) who, with other colleagues, put together a report on this issue that included a model code, which we think is very fit and which we intend to recommend to the Commission.

This kind of call-off contract is a much better way of dealing with the perfectly legitimate need to have some casual staff within our service, particularly in regard to catering. We believe that by doing that in the way I have set out, and which we intend to advise the Commission to follow, we will be fulfilling our goal of being employers of the first order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) and to be called to speak in the same debate as the Chairman of the Administration Committee, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), who is looking rather less bleary-eyed than I expected having no doubt been up all night watching the Australians collapse in the opening test.

Several years ago, there was a by-election where the Labour party did not do particularly well, and a then Labour Minister, who I will not name for obvious reasons, went on the radio to explain our poor showing and said that the reason Labour voters had stayed at home was that they were clearly very happy with what the Labour Government were doing. Looking around the Chamber at today’s attendance, I wonder whether some colleagues may wish to draw the same conclusion—that the reason there are not as many colleagues here as there might have been is that they are so delighted with the work that has been done by the Commission under your chairmanship, Mr Speaker, the Administration Committee and the Finance and Services Committee. It is surprising that many of the MPs who on previous occasions have complained vocally have not come along or tabled an amendment. I therefore assume that they are broadly content or have no better plans for how to make the necessary savings. I appreciate the incredibly difficult job that you, Mr Speaker, and your fellow Commission members have in trying to come up with those savings. I am struck by the fact that at a time when we are always preaching across the House about the need to make savings, some Government Members are asking for more money. That is very difficult to justify to our constituents. We must get better at spending the limited resources that we have.

I want to address three of the areas that have been covered so well today. First, on the catering and retail services, the Administration Committee has made it absolutely clear—I do not think I am speaking out of turn in saying that the Commission shares this view—that it is ludicrous that we have in the Palace of Westminster two sets of catering and two sets of retail outlets that are run completely separately. I know from the Clerk of the House and from you, Mr Speaker, that there is genuine good will towards the idea of seeking to merge the two services. I hope that my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House will set out the Labour party’s position and the Leader of the House will set out the Government’s position on whether that is a good idea. We could achieve significant savings for the taxpayer that would help us to fund other services if we were to persuade the House of Lords that while the House of Commons is making real savings, it must do more at its end of the building to bring down costs.

On the broader point about catering costs, I fully support the work that has been done by the right hon. Gentleman who ably chairs the Administration Committee in bringing forward proposals not to make money from charities but to offset the costs. A new set of charges is in place for a trial period, as of course you fully know, Mr Speaker, because it is costing the House money to provide our facilities to outside organisations.

[Kevin Brennan]

Just for clarity, let me say that in objecting to this House being hired out to certain organisations, I am not talking about charities but about corporate interests.

[Thomas Docherty]

I think we can all agree that pop bands would certainly not be classed as having a corporate identity. We are all looking forward to the world-famous parliamentary pop band MP4 entertaining us in a few weeks’ time. I am sure that you will be coming along to the Strangers Bar to see them on 10 December, Mr Speaker. I hope that that will generate some extra revenue. We all commend that excellent band for what they are doing.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point about which are the right organisations to bring in. The Administration Committee and the Commission have looked at this very carefully. We are saying that it would not be open to any organisation—there will be a vetting process—and it will be for the House itself, through the Chairman of the Administration Committee and the Committee more widely, to ensure that only appropriate organisations come here. I know that my hon. Friend is phenomenally busy doing a fantastic job in our education team, but if he wanted to come and have a chat with the Committee about the type of organisation that he would not like to see here, I am sure that we could reach a suitable accommodation with him.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. So that our proceedings are fully intelligible to those outside this place, it might be helpful to point out, with reference to the hon. Gentleman’s observations on MP4, that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) and the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), both here present, are distinguished members of said band.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful for that clarification, Mr Speaker.

If my hon. Friend or other Members on both sides of the House have genuine concerns about specific organisations they do not think are appropriate to be using our facilities, I am sure that the Administration Committee and the Commission would be happy to hear representations from them. The intention is not to turn Parliament into a Disneyland, as an hon. Member who is not here has said previously, or to rent it out to any old organisation. My hon. Friend makes a valid point, because some organisations have, in the business parlance, a reputational risk for Parliament. At the same time, we need to offset the cost of running Parliament and, as you have set out, Mr Speaker, we cannot simply keep going back to the taxpayer to ask for more money. We have to look not only to reduce our costs but to offset them wherever possible.

Concern has been expressed on both sides of the House about charities being charged, but the fact is that it costs us money to make these facilities available, and charities have a 25% discount on their hire charges because we recognise that they are not-for-profit organisations. We do not seek to prohibit or inhibit the ability of charities and other organisations to use our facilities—we very much welcome it—but we have to make sure that we are not, in effect, subsidising those charities.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am sorry to intervene again; my hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. I think it is impossible to distinguish between different corporate interests. There will be issues of controversy with regard to all sorts of corporate interests. There might even be an issue of controversy in this House, which we will then be hiring out to those organisations. I think it would be better—I will not make this point again—if we simply stuck to charities that are registered with the Charity Commission; then we would all know where we were.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am genuinely grateful for my hon. Friend’s comment, but where I disagree with him, with the greatest respect, is that we already rent out to the private sector. If Members were to walk down the Dining Room Corridor at 8 am every morning, they would see each Dining Room being used for breakfast. A large number of those breakfast events are—

[Kevin Brennan]

Sponsored by Members.

[Thomas Docherty]

But they are paid for by businesses. If Members were to go to the Terrace Pavilion every evening, they would see receptions taking place that have been paid for by companies.

[Kevin Brennan]

Sponsored by Members.

[Thomas Docherty]

The Dining Rooms also have events that are paid for by companies. My hon. Friend keeps saying from a sedentary position that they are sponsored, but that will not change; it is just that it is the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden, in his capacity as Chairman of the Administration Committee, who will be the sponsoring Member. In the same way that individual Members currently sponsor events during sitting times—it is up to hon. Members to make those decisions—the Administration Committee seeks to do so during recess.

I honestly do not see the difference. If my hon. Friend is genuinely saying that private organisations should not be able to hold breakfast, lunch, dinner or drinks receptions, that is a legitimate position, although I do not agree with it. I think that saying that it is okay for an individual Member to do it, but that it is not okay for the right hon. Gentleman to do it, is a false divide.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Gentleman and I disagree with earlier comments. In fact, it is surely much less compromising of the integrity of Parliament that if commercial organisations want to rent facilities in the House of Commons, they should not need to sweet talk a particular Member in order to do so, but instead make a straight commercial arrangement. Has he thought about having a different scale of charges for, say, a merchant bank that wants to use the facilities to promote the flotation of a stock market company, compared with a charity that does something that is recognisably for wider public benefit?

[Thomas Docherty]

We are indeed proposing that there be different rates. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) has said, charities that are registered either with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator or with the Charity Commission will receive a 25% discount, for the very reason given so eloquently by the hon. Gentleman.

I want to make progress, because I am conscious that there is another debate to follow. My second point is about the new MPs who will arrive in 2015. Labour Members hope that we will welcome a very large number of new MPs, but others may be less keen on that. The Administration Committee took a thorough look at the process that took place over the past couple of Parliaments. It is important to place on record our thanks to the House service and in particular to the Clerk of the House for the work he did with you, Mr Speaker, to prepare our induction in 2010. Those colleagues who have been in the House slightly longer have told us just how chaotic—I put it politely—the process was for them. Perhaps that was your experience when you entered the House only a few short Parliaments ago, Mr Speaker, but the process has improved dramatically under your chairmanship and as a result of the Clerk’s work.

We very much welcome the plans for the future, but they will clearly have cost implications. We recognise that it is important to get Members up and running as quickly as possible. As we all know, constituents—not unreasonably, having in their wisdom voted us into office—expect us very quickly to be able to take up their cases. The lag of six or perhaps eight weeks because of the general election has meant that MPs have not been able to take on new cases. I know from my experience three and a half years ago that deserving cases that need time get lost. The Administration Committee therefore proposes a series of sensible steps to ensure that when a Member arrives, even before they have been sworn in, they will be able to begin to tackle their casework.

That is why Members will be issued with tablets along with their pass as soon as they arrive on their first day. They will get them going and they are also a way of trying to reduce costs, because, frankly, we waste a huge amount of paper every day. I certainly hope we will never get to the point where we wave our tablets during Prime Minister’s questions, but do we honestly need the vast amount of paper we generate every day? Surely we can do much more through electronic devices such as tablets and iPhones. The move that you have championed with the Order Paper is hugely welcome, Mr Speaker, and the move towards greater use of the cloud in the next Parliament is also important.

My third point follows on from the excellent opening remarks by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross about restoration and renewal. We are spending a huge amount of money just to keep the place running. The building is now about 160-something years old and the piping and wiring are about 60 or 70 years old. The building has not had an overhaul since the restoration work that took place at the end of the second world war. It is not fit for purpose. Colleagues in both Houses who have difficulty getting around have told me how difficult it can be to get to Divisions because of the building’s lay-out.

I think everyone knows that I am of the view that we need to make the very difficult decision to decant, not only because that will allow us to overhaul this place, which appears to be the cheapest option, but because it will allow us to upgrade our facilities. We really need to make sure that we have a Parliament fit for the 21st century. As has been said, there is an opportunity to do it in one go. I used to work for Network Rail, which was pretty efficient in the end at doing what is called a blockade, whereby it would shut a section of line and do everything—the signalling, wiring and track maintenance—at once. We need to use this opportunity, in the next decade, to have a thorough overhaul so that this place is fit not only for Members, but for the illustrious Press Gallery and for visitors who want either to see Parliament in action or to participate in our democracy.

[Mr Winnick]

I should have said earlier that I want a restored building, not a new building on the site. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful if the Commons decided to fix a date in the near future—for example, 2020—for the work to start, because if we do not do so we will just carry on spending money, as he has rightly said, on work that will not resolve the issue at all?

[Thomas Docherty]

The key thing is that both Houses of Parliament, not just the Commons, need to make that decision. If Members were to go down to the bowels of this place, they would see that it is so interlinked that it is not possible for just the Commons to make a decision. The decision needs to be made on a bicameral basis. I know that you are taking the issue very seriously, Mr Speaker. It is not for me to say when the decision should be made, but I agree with my hon. Friend that 2020—after the new intake has been sworn in and when we get to the summer recess—would be an obvious point at which to decant.

I am conscious that other Members want to speak. I commend the motion and thank the Select Committees that serve this House so ably.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye in what is the second of our annual debates on House of Commons estimates. It is a great tribute to how my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) has chaired his Committee that this whole matter has been brought before us so that a spotlight can be shone on the finances of the House of Commons, a highly complex organisation.

Since we started having these two annual debates, the whole culture of financial management in this place has changed. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and I served on the Committee in the last Parliament, during which time the emphasis was on how much money we could spend—and the more money spent, the better the project. Now it is all about trying to get value for money and making sure that the House is run efficiently. I have to say that that has been a huge improvement. The savings target of 17% will bring this place’s budget down to £200 million by 2015. It has been met only after a lot of hard work by the Finance and Services Committee. In that respect, I pay tribute to our staff, to the Clerk of the Committee and to members of the Management Board who help us in various aspects of the task.

On the ongoing pay dispute, I echo what other Members have said. I hope that, as a result of this debate, there is enough good will on both sides. The Chairman made particular reference to us wanting to be an exemplary employer and, on the other side, I hope that the unions will want to be exemplary pay negotiators. This matter could go out to some form of mediation so that it does not end up in the courts, lining the pockets of the lawyers, which I think would be a most unfortunate outcome.

I shall be brief, as much has already been said, but it is worth noting some of the savings we have made. The print-to-web project has saved £2.2 million, and the new ICT strategy has saved £2.4 million. I want to pay tribute to the Chairman of the Administration Committee —I was formerly a member—who has rightly championed the cause of opening this place up so that we can generate more income.

There has been some controversy in the debate over how much we should open up and to whom. In the same spirit of openness that this debate brings to the whole issue of House of Commons finances and how this place is run, I personally think that we should open it up and charge a commercial rate to anybody, providing they are legal, and that includes political parties and trade unions. They should be fully declared and the information should be fully open on the public register. After all, what is the difference between a political party or a trade union making a profit as opposed to a commercial bank making one? Provided everything is properly declared and provided a full commercial rate is paid, I cannot see the difference. Indeed, I put in a freedom of information request the other day relating to two events I sponsored last year, trying to ascertain exactly who was there and what they were all about.

I view that as the way to go forward. Let us put it all in the public domain. At the same time, however, the Chairman of the Administration Committee has made it perfectly clear that there are to be some exceptions to full commercial cost recovery, for charitable organisations or events run by Members, for example. I think a third category of events run by all-party groups could be considered. If they are registered, proper all-party groups—bearing in mind Mr Speaker’s dictum that they should not be in hock to any particular commercial organisation —it seems perfectly reasonable for them to benefit from the same regime of exceptions.

[Thomas Docherty]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we miss him on the Select Committee since he moved on to other things. On the point of all-party groups, the reality is that they might end up fronting for commercially organised events. That is why the all-party groups are not given the same exemptions.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my last few remarks, he would have heard that I clearly said “bearing in mind Mr Speaker’s dictum”, after his inquiry into all-party groups, that they should not be in hock to any particular commercial organisation. That is the proper basis for registering them in future. Just this last week, I have formed an integrated transport group to ensure that all methods of transport in this country mesh together. I have been clear about where the money for our secretariat is going to come from—not from one or two commercial firms. I would much prefer it if the money came from a trade organisation, a trade union or some membership organisation with a wide base of people.

[Thomas Docherty]

It is important to clarify this point. If an all-party group is meeting in a room, there is no charge. If, however, there is a dinner for an outside body that is clearly paying for it, it should not be possible to hide behind the all-party group name to get a big discount. That is the point of what we are trying to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

I think we need to look at how we can run this place, with two legislatures that are not the same but coexist in the same building, in a far more effective and efficient way. That does not mean making them completely co-operative in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests, but it does mean that we should see what efficiencies and savings we can get from running joint services. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot make large administrative savings from doing so.

[Thomas Docherty]

I fully endorse my hon. Friend’s proposal. Indeed, the first report of the Administration Committee called for a single catering service, for example. It is ludicrous that we have two separate catering services. This is an excellent idea.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. Merely dismissing this without thinking much more carefully about the potential for savings is perhaps being rather more conservative than I thought the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) was being when he declared himself the self-appointed shop steward of Select Committee Chairs. I was about to call him “Red Bernard”, but I decided that that might be considered unparliamentary language.

We should explore in detail the potential for releasing savings in these ways. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree with me more when I say that if we can release them, we should use some of them to give much more support and resources to our Select Committees, to enable them to hold the Executive to account even more effectively than they do now. I do not know whether he has talked himself and his Committee out of having some of those savings released to them. In his speech, he made a strong plea for the more effective resourcing of Select Committees.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I fear that we shall not complete the debate by 2.15—[Hon. Members: “Oh, go on!”] Tempting though that is. These are House matters, and it has been important to hear from Members about them; that is probably more important than hearing from me. I very much welcome the debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for introducing it and for the work that he and his Committee have done. I should like to bracket him together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), the Chair of the Administration Committee, and to thank them both for enabling the House to have such confidence in their work and for managing the difficult decisions that will continually have to be made if we are to meet our savings targets.

I join Members across the House who have rightly expressed support for the way in which the House continues to manage the provision of services. Much continues to be achieved in delivering high-quality services to Members, to enable them to provide support for their constituents and to provide the representation here that is integral to our democratic process. We can do all that only because of the tremendous service and support that we receive from the staff of the House. Integral to the way in which the savings targets have been delivered has been the way in which the House staff have participated and offered their ideas on how the plans in the various Departments could be brought together.

Just over three years ago, the House of Commons Commission committed itself to reducing the administration estimate by at least 17% by 2014-15. I am pleased to see that we are on track to meet that target. This is related to the reduction in administration costs across government as a whole, including an average reduction in departmental budgets of 19% over four years, and a reduction in the overall administration costs in many Departments of one third in real terms. Of course, this is not only about administration costs; it is also about delivering efficiencies that can be reinvested to enable services to be qualitatively improved wherever possible.

The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) made a point about working together with the House of Lords on administration. I must point out that we do that already. Good examples of where that can be, and should be, done are security, procurement and back-office functions. We have to be careful, however, not to treat the separate governance of the two Houses as an “anomaly”, as I think she called it. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) has made some good points in this regard. It is not an anomaly; it is a constitutional fact, and it is not going to change in the immediate future, so far as I can see. I know from my conversations with the Leader of the House of Lords that the Lords want to work together with us, but we must respect their position and the need for the two Houses to make decisions for themselves. My hon. Friend rightly drew the analogy of two local authorities working together to share support services and back-office functions. We can and should do this, but there might well be governance issues and areas in which separate decisions will continue to be made.

I want to say a few words about restoration and renewal, but I also want to flag up that, given the nature of the decisions that will have to be made, and the integral character of the programme for the two Houses, we will clearly have to think about putting in place joint governance structures for the programme, which will extend across the two Houses.

[Thomas Docherty]

On the point about joint services, will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether, on catering and retail, we should maintain the status quo or accept the position of the Administration Committee and bring them together?

[Mr Lansley]

I will leave it to the Committees to decide whether they want to bring forward proposals. Although I am perfectly willing to commit to talking to the Leader of the House of Lords, it is in neither of our gifts to put the two Houses together for such a purpose, but I know that there is a willingness in both Houses to look at where administration and support can be managed together.

Amendments to Bills (Explanatory Statements)

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I beg to move, amendment (a), leave out from “House” to noting and insert

‘notes the recommendation contained in paragraph 21 of the Procedure Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2012-13, Explanatory statements on amendments, HC 979; and resolves that explanatory statements on amendments be mandatory, subject to guidelines to be issued under the authority of the Chair’.

Today, we have the opportunity significantly to increase transparency and transfer just a little bit of power from the Whips to Back-Bench MPs. When I first arrived here, I was immediately struck by how difficult it was to work out what all the amendments tabled on the Floor of the House actually sought to do; and I did not seem to be alone, so I joined with others who also wanted a brief explanation of amendments so that everyone could know what they sought to achieve. At the moment, as we run from another meeting, we look to see what we are voting on and find something like: “Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1)”. So then we need to consult several dense documents to work out what that and many other multiple amendments actually mean.

It is quite right, of course, that MPs should, as much as possible, listen and contribute to debates in the main Chamber, follow all those debates and then be enlightened on the effects of every single amendment, but as hon. Members know, being an effective MP involves many other tasks, including responsibilities to undertake work in Committees, to attend Westminster Hall debates and to chair and attend meetings. As a result, colleagues frequently cannot sit in the Chamber all the time a debate is going on. There are many talented Back Benchers in this place who want to scrutinise, and they should not be treated as Lobby fodder.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

We have checked with the Vote Office and our e-mails and we cannot find an explanatory statement for the hon. Lady’s amendment. Given that she did not table one with the Vote Office or circulate one to colleagues, surely she is defeating her own argument.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman raises that matter, because I actually sought some advice on it. We were allowed to table explanatory statements during the pilot, but as I understood it, we were not allowed to do it now, otherwise I would have done it, precisely to make that point.

[Thomas Docherty]

But the hon. Lady could have circulated one to colleagues. There was nothing to prevent her from using the e-mail system—the green way of doing it—to send an explanatory statement to all 650 colleagues. Why did she not do that?

[Caroline Lucas]

I want to make it mandatory for everybody. It is very nice to do it voluntarily, as we would have done had we been allowed, but we were not. [Interruption.] Instead of smirking in that rather irritating fashion, the hon. Gentleman should focus on the debate in hand.

I was making the point that MPs should not be treated as Lobby fodder. After two pilot schemes, everyone seems now to agree that 50-word explanations are a good thing, so the motion from the Procedure Committee to make possible explanatory statements to amendments to be discussed on the Floor of the House is very welcome. I wish it was possible all the time; it is a pity that we have to get special permission even to make it possible. On those two pilots, it was possible.

I also welcome statement in the Procedure Committee’s report that it wants the statements to

“become an accepted norm of the legislative process.”

If that is what the Committee wants, why not make the statements mandatory, rather than just talking about an aspiration or a wish? The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) rightly said that the Government did indeed issue explanatory statements on that occasion, and that the Opposition did not do so. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, one day, the Government will become the Opposition and find it less convenient to produce them in future. If we want it to become as natural to issue an explanatory statement as it is to sign an amendment, we have the opportunity tonight to make them mandatory.

A cross-party group of us, including senior colleagues, who are working on parliamentary reform have tabled amendment (a) because we would like the explanatory statements to be mandatory, to ensure that the Procedure Committee’s wish for the statements to become the norm becomes a reality. To clarify, in calling for the statements to be mandatory, we envisage guidelines to include dispensing for the need for them in relation to self-explanatory or consequential amendments. Actually, that is a good reason for not having circulated an explanatory statement on amendment (a), as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) was tempting me to do: it is surely, even to him, self-explanatory.

Unless we have a mandatory scheme, as amendment (a) proposes, there is a danger that the statements would not become part of the culture of this place, and that they would be submitted only when it suited Members to do so. As we all know, the Executive do not behave within the spirit of the legislative system at all times, and we need a system that will ensure that, when they are substantially amending their own legislation—on Report, for example—they have to explain why.

The recent pilot taught us that the Whips pick and choose. The official Opposition did not bother to submit statements on the first Bill, the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which was a great shame. However, they appeared to have a change of heart, and were prepared to submit them on the relatively uncontentious Small Charitable Donations Bill. I do not accept that they did not participate on the first Bill because of a lack of resources. Sometimes it is more convenient not to explain, and frankly that is not good enough. That is why we need the statements to be mandatory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in what I am sure will be a short debate. It is perhaps worth clarifying one point for the benefit of the Chair of the Procedure Committee, on which I have the privilege to serve. He referred to those who had signed the motion and I think he perhaps inadvertently suggested that I was the shadow Deputy Leader of the House. I do not have that great privilege; that more august position is held by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith). I think that reference was probably an oversight on his behalf.

The debate so far has been fascinating and great passion has been expressed about clarity and resources. Like other colleagues, I have the highest admiration for the House and the House service. I am always in bewildered awe at the great education that our Clerks have had compared with ours. As colleagues who have tabled amendments over the years will know, we are often up against tight timetables. There are archaic rules about when amendments must be tabled by and I think it places an undue burden on the House service to expect that when someone comes in up against the deadline—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) chunters from a sedentary position, as ever, about short deadlines. I cannot help but recall the number of amendments he tabled at the very last minute when he was a Minister, yet he criticises those colleagues who are forced to wait until the very last minute. The notion that we would rule out a perfectly reasonable and well thought-out amendment because it did not have an accompanying explanatory statement is anti-democratic. I am disappointed—I genuinely have great respect for the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Heath]

I am puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he saying that the procedures of the House really do not matter, and that we do not have to be in accordance with them when tabling an amendment, provided that it is a really important amendment, or does he accept the fact that the rules are there to aid debate, and that there is a back-stop provision, as the Chair can always rule something in order, as they do frequently with manuscript amendments?

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which leads me nicely to the point that I was going to make about “Erskine May” and the discretion of the Chair. You are a wonderful Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, held in the greatest regard by Members on both sides of the House. The whole House has the highest regard for your observations and the way in which you guide us through difficult debates. “Erskine May” makes it clear that colleagues should not read out speeches, but with great discretion, Mr Deputy Speaker, you allowed the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) to read her speech. The House rules would say, following the intervention of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, that that would not be allowed. The notion, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we would expect you to overrule the consensus of the House is probably unfair on you, and the hon. Gentleman has therefore placed too great a burden on your august shoulders. It is wrong to place the Chair in that position.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

My hon. Friend seems to labour under the apprehension that the Chair will be put in an undue position of power over selection, and will have power that they do not already enjoy. However, has he not noted the point made by the Public Bill Office on page 10 of the report that

“An alternative would be to allow orderly explanatory statements to be tabled on the day after the deadline for tabling the amendments themselves. It would, of course, be for the Speaker or Chairman of Ways and Means…to select an amendment”

afterwards? That would overcome the problem that my hon. Friend raises that Members should not be expected to provide an explanatory statement before the deadline.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am always grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a genuine parliamentarian. However, as I have said, this is about putting a greater onus on the Chair of a Bill Committee or the Chair in the Chamber. I do not think that we want to add to those burdens. We have some wonderful Chairs who chair proceedings with a light touch. I fear that there would be complaints from the Government, the Opposition, the minority parties and Back Benchers saying, “Why has that one been allowed in, when an explanatory statement was not scheduled in time?” We have seen too often that, because the Government have tended to introduce Bills at the last minute—I am thinking of the gagging Bill in September—it would be difficult for my hon. Friends to table amendments, then produce explanatory statements.

I genuinely welcome the fact that the Government have made it absolutely clear that they intend all their amendments to have explanatory statements whenever practicable—I take their word on that. I had a slight exchange with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who said with some justification, to be fair, that when he was a Minister explanatory statements were produced for all his revisions. I suspect that his civil servants had a hand in the drafting of those statements, but that is not a luxury that the Opposition or, indeed, Back Benchers enjoy. If the Government wish to expand the resources available—

[Wayne David]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there could be a strong case for mandatory explanatory statements if the Opposition had exactly the same resources at their disposal as the Government?

[Thomas Docherty]

That is a fair point. I do not think that I am giving away anything when I say that that was one of the discussions that the Procedure Committee had with the Front-Bench team and the House service. Regrettably, however, in these austere times, that is not on the table. If it were, I would wholeheartedly support the amendment, with the caveat that Back Benchers should be given greater resource.

It is something of an insult to parliamentary colleagues to maintain the myth that Members of Parliament are confused or vote the wrong way. I am conscious that Liberal Democrats may see that as a good excuse at the next general election to explain why they voted for a series of measures—“I am very sorry. I didn’t realise what I was voting for”—but I am not aware of a single case where a Liberal Democrat MP will argue that they voted to increase tuition fees or break their other promises because they were confused about what the motion or amendment meant. Perhaps the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will correct me. The idea that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is promoting that Members are confused about what they are voting for is utter nonsense.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. He must recall that friends of his in the House were perturbed to find that they had voted a particular way on an amendment to the Succession to the Crown Bill without realising, they said, that it had implications for religious equality—something for which they would not have voted. If explanatory statements had been required on all amendments to the Succession to the Crown Bill, Members would have known exactly when they were voting to keep sectarianism in the British constitution and when they were not.

[Thomas Docherty]

I will not comment on how many friends I have in the House.

In conclusion—

[Zac Goldsmith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Thomas Docherty]

I want to wind up to let others get in.

A Select Committee has considered the issue at great length and brought forward a procedure. It is slightly ironic that we are now hearing so-called Parliament First parliamentarians saying that we should reject the wishes of the Select Committee which was tasked with examining the issue. I look forward to hearing other views.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a very short speech in support of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). There is no job description for Back-Bench MPs, but if there was it would be to hold the Government to account on behalf of their constituents. That is very hard to do, given the busy schedule, with Select Committee meetings and all the other obligations MPs have, if the likelihood is that when the Division bell rings we will not know what the amendment we are being asked to vote for actually represents. I would be interested to hear whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) can tell us honestly—he is welcome to intervene—that he has never voted for an amendment that he did not understand. I would be very surprised if he can.

[Thomas Docherty]

I have never voted for an amendment and later regretted doing so.

[Zac Goldsmith]

That sounds more like luck than anything else. If he did not know what he was voting for, there is every chance that afterwards he might have regretted it, so he is very lucky that has not happened.

[Dr Wollaston]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be very interesting to call a Division now to see how many Members arriving in the Chamber could tell what they were voting for?

[Thomas Docherty]

rose—

[Zac Goldsmith]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I do not want to detain the House, but I should make it clear that if I have ever been confused in advance, I have asked one of my parliamentary colleagues, or perhaps those friendly Whips, about what was going on. Also, it would have been really helpful if there had been an explanatory statement for this amendment.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I take the point. There have been many occasions in the short time I have been in the House when I have had to seek advice on votes I was being asked to cast. I have asked many Back Benchers on both sides of the House and the Whips but have still been unable to understand them or get any kind of clarity. I have had to abstain in Divisions because I simply did not know what the amendments I was being asked to vote for were about.

Business of the House

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and it is right to recall that issue today. The Backbench Business Committee has helpfully scheduled debates in the House on two occasions, which has allowed the House to make a signal contribution to identifying the problems associated with stigma and discrimination related to mental health. We should not rest on that, however, and must pursue the issue further. The Time To Change campaign—which has now rolled out across the country, supported by £60 million of Government funding—is capable of making a big difference. I recall it was trialled in Cambridgeshire, and a lot of people appreciated how it enabled many people to change their views about the impact and character of mental health problems, which so many people in all sorts of families suffer from.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

On 16 August and 2 September I wrote to the Business Secretary on two matters: first, the Government’s role in selling fake bomb detectors to other countries, and, secondly, the export of chemicals that could be used to make chemical weapons in Syria. I have not received a reply to either letter and I wonder whether the Leader of the House’s wonderful civil servants could have a word with their counterparts in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to find out why the courtesies of the House are not being followed.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, of course. I will be glad to do that as I regard it as one of my responsibilities to assist Members in ensuring that we respond promptly—timeously, I should say—to requests for information and representations to Ministers.

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

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I will give way in a moment, but let me first pursue the point about those who are trying to regulate all lobbying activity. Having thought very carefully about whether there was a considered or credible basis for taking that much wider action, we concluded that there was not, and that is therefore not our objective in the Bill. I readily accept that some people would like the Bill to be very different. Indeed, the reasoned amendment indicates that the Opposition have suddenly decided that they want to include all professional lobbyists and everything that they do in a register, although they presented no such proposal to the Government last year.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I know that the hon. Gentleman presented a private Member’s Bill. The point is, however, that we are not aiming for the creation of the bureaucratic monster that would result from action of that kind. We are aiming for transparency rather than the control of lobbying, the result of which would be the registration of thousands of lobbyists and a requirement for a draconian system of reporting and enforcement.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso]

I am terribly sorry, but that clock is a tough master.

Much of today’s contention has been about part 2. I believe that it is positive that people are motivated to campaign for what they believe in. It is obvious that such activity is moving away from traditional political parties and into third-party organisations. However, when campaigning is of a political nature, it is right that it should be controlled properly. That is an accepted principle in the current legislation, to which the Bill proposes amendments.

My understanding of the purpose of part 2 is that somebody who seeks to affect the outcome of the election—that is, a particular candidate or party will benefit from their actions—will be controlled. If, on the other hand, they offer policies to all parties in the hope that they will be taken up, they will not be included. Very basically, I understand that to be the core of what we are doing.

[Thomas Docherty]

That is not the case.

[John Thurso]

I believe that that is what the Bill sets out to do. That is an appropriate and good measure to take. If I am wrong, the way to flush that out is to table amendments in Committee.

I heard, as hon. Members across the House will have heard, the assurance that was given by the Leader of the House on that point. He stated clearly what the objective was and gave the commitment that if, for any reason, that objective was not met by the Bill as currently drafted, he would accept amendments or seek to make amendments to achieve the objective. There is good will on the part of Ministers to deal with something that is an appropriate addition to the legislation.

Under the current regulatory regime, third parties can spend a considerable amount of money. In the 2010 election, 25 third parties spent £3 million. I believe that the reduction that we are making and the fact that it will not be possible to target funds into one constituency are rather important. I was most taken by the intervention by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). I am with him, as I always am. He and I make common cause on many matters. There are a number of organisations that will be controlled that both he and I would like to see controlled. A foreign tycoon who funds a third party that sets out to spend a fortune in one constituency will be dealt with in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Oh dear, the hon. Gentleman gets so over-excited on these occasions that he intervenes far too early. What I was going to come on to say is that the matter of what happens in Parliament is, rightly, not covered in the Bill. It is the duty of Parliament and the House of Commons itself to regulate its own affairs. If the Bill interfered in the procedures of this House I would oppose it. We have an absolute right, under the Bill of Rights, to freedom of speech in this House, and members of the public have the right of access to Members of Parliament. That absolute right must be defended. Members of the public must be free, whether individually or collectively, to express their views to Members of Parliament. If MPs fall foul of the high standards that are expected of them, then that is a matter for the Privileges Committee to deal with. We have powers not only to expel Members if necessary, but to imprison them, and they have no right of appeal to any court in the land.

That is how we should proceed in terms of Parliament. Government is another matter and that is why it is right that part 1 deals with the lobbying of Ministers of the Crown and of civil servants. That is a matter rightly confined to legislation.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but he just mentioned civil servants. In fact, the Bill does not cover civil servants, just permanent secretaries. Is that not a failing and an oversight of the Bill?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I do not think it is. It is important to deal with the senior figures who will be important in decision making, and the Bill is right to do that.

The Bill is also absolutely right to confine itself to professional lobbyists. It is surely reasonable that when a public company—for example, Coca-Cola or Shell—has a meeting with Ministers, we know and understand that they will be promoting their own business. However, when an obscure lobbyist wanders into Downing street, we want to know who that obscure lobbyist is promoting. [Interruption.] Bing Crosby? I do not think he has been going to Downing street recently. As far as I am aware he is no longer alive. It is right that regulation should be at ministerial level. Crucially, the Bill defends the liberty of people to lobby, so it has got that difficult balance right. There has been talk about the long gestation period of the Bill. That has been because it has not been easy for the balance, between the protections of freedom of speech and the need to regulate lobbying, to be correctly aligned. The Government, in their wisdom, have succeeded magnificently in doing that.

Part 2 is even better—it is the highlight of the Bill. It is so sensible that we should regulate third parties in the same way as political parties. The idea that a third party in a general election should be subject to less regulation than a political party that is openly fighting an election is the height of absurdity. The panic that we have had from the Opposition Benches and some in the charities section is glorious to behold. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) said that there was a firestorm—a literal firestorm—in Hampstead. I was hoping that London’s noble fire brigade was not going to go out and be disappointed—that it would not react as when it was summoned by Matilda, as you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker: it came out in all its glory and, of course, there was no fire, because Matilda called the fire brigade when there was not a fire to be seen. Eventually, there was, and she burnt to death. That is the danger of saying that there are firestorms, when in fact this is a perfectly sound Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I feel that we are almost repeating the debate we had in January, when I introduced my private Member’s Bill on lobbyists—I think today’s turnout is slightly higher than it perhaps was on that Friday. I am sorry that the Government have not reflected on that debate or on last year’s excellent report by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and have introduced this dreadful Bill.

Owing to time constraints, I will speak about part 1, but, in the interests of transparency, let me put on record the fact that my wife works for a charity in Scotland and is therefore indirectly affected by the proposed legislation.

Fred Michel, Adam Werritty, Fiji-gate, MPs for hire like cabs, peers for questions—all are scandals that have blotted Parliament and politics in the past four years. It is not an unreasonable test to ask the Government which, if any, of those scandals this Bill seeks to prevent from happening again. The harsh reality is that part 1 of the Bill would have avoided none of them, because the Government have drafted it so narrowly—I suspect deliberately—that the only type of activity covered is direct communication with a Minister of the Crown and a permanent secretary. Therefore, if a lobbyist or even a consultant lobbyist communicates with a private secretary—I would suggest that the Prime Minister’s private secretary has a great deal of influence, perhaps more than the Deputy Prime Minister, on certain areas of policy, such as tobacco packaging and other things—that will not be covered. If, as the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said, a lobbyist speaks to a senior official in the Department for Transport, that is okay, provided it is not the permanent secretary. If a lobbyist speaks to the special adviser, as Fred Michel clearly was in the News International scandal, that would okay. That is a failure of the Bill; it is one that I cannot support this evening.

[Mrs Main]

For clarification, may I point out that I was referring to a private lunch with the Secretary of State for Transport?

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because I intended to come to the point she made. It is an important point and one that I raised this morning. I had a meeting with the Deputy Leader of the House and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith). It was very civil and I got a cup of coffee out of it, but I do not think we made much progress in agreeing on very much.

The problems with the Bill are so fundamental that even the impact assessment is wrong. The civil servants who drafted the Bill—who, ironically, would not be covered by the lobbying Bill they are seeking to introduce—have failed to understand the lobbying industry. That is not surprising, given that they failed to meet anybody, from either side of the argument, in the last 12 months. They have not met Spinwatch, Unlock Democracy, Charter88, the charities or the Association of Professional Political Consultants—I could go on. Those civil servants have met nobody. They have stuck their fingers in their ears and produced a Bill that no one in the industry or on either side of the argument is prepared to support. That is a shocking state of affairs.

The civil servants who drafted the Bill have also misunderstood how to calculate the number of lobbyists. Their impact assessment claims that there are between 800 and 1,000 lobbying firms, but the evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee shows that there are fewer than 100. So the £500,000 that it will cost to set up the register, and the £200,000 a year running costs, will have to be met by 50 or 60 firms. Great free-marketeers and defenders of business such as the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) should join us in the Lobby tonight, because the burden that that will place on the companies caught by the legislation, many of which are small businesses, is ridiculous and disproportionate. The Bill will do nothing to solve that problem.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

If one takes a free-market view, the conclusion is not that we should have more regulation of many more people, as the hon. Gentleman wants to have.

[Thomas Docherty]

I believe in a level playing field. It should not matter whether someone works in-house or elsewhere, or whether they work for Rio Tinto or Oxfam, for Bell Pottinger or CAFOD. The same set of rules should apply equally to all of them. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not think that the rules should apply to all those who are paid—handsomely in some cases—to carry out this work.

I want to return to the point raised by the hon. Member for St Albans, and to take it slightly further. As I said to Ministers this morning, there was a case recently in which a Minister of the Crown met a third-party consultant—a commercial lobbyist, as I think they are called—to discuss a planning application in their constituency. The Government seem to define that as a private discussion. If that consultant had chosen to raise other issues at the meeting, that activity would not be covered by the Bill because the consultant would say, “I am meeting the Minister not in their role as a Minister of the Crown but in their role as a Member of Parliament. I just happened to raise a general issue of Government policy that might be of interest and over which the Minister might have some influence.” That would be ludicrous.

For that reason, if for no other, the rules should apply to all parliamentarians. Ministers of the Crown—whether in the House of Lords or the House of Commons—are all parliamentarians. Extending the rules would avoid any double standards. Many Members of Parliament are members, and chairs, of influential Select Committees. They have a greater amount of influence in shaping the early stages of Government policy than those who serve as Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State. Anyone who has read Chris Mullin’s excellent book, “A View from the Foothills”, will remember the ceaseless slog of the life of an Under-Secretary. I see a Parliamentary Private Secretary smiling at that suggestion. Select Committee Chairs are hugely influential. Similarly, Members of Parliament who sit on Bill Committees help to shape our legislation. They are the people who should be protected from unscrupulous lobbyists, and if we did that we would provide the public with far greater confidence in the process. The rules have to apply to all those who exert influence.

The rules cannot only be about those who directly communicate with those in a position of power. In all of my eight years as a lobbyist, in the House and in consultancy, I met a Minister on two occasions, at most. I used to advise others on who in the Government, in Parliament and in the Scottish Parliament it was best to go and see, on the correct issues on which to press them, and on what their arguments should be. The Bill does not cover any of the people who do that.

The Bill is so narrow that it does not even cover those consultants who sit in the room during meetings, because a person has to actually communicate with a Minister or permanent secretary in order to be covered. The consultant might have done all the preparatory work and the strategy, and we have all taken meetings that have been facilitated by the consultant, but they might not actually be in communication with the Minister or the permanent secretary. For example, if a consultant were to contact the diary secretary of the Leader of the House, that would still not be covered by the Bill.

This is a dreadful Bill. It is not worthy of further progress and I hope that the House will reject it and ask the Government to come back and do their homework correctly.

Business of the House

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I understand that the hon. Lady does not have the text. I will not read it all out now as it would take too long, but I will gladly share it with Members and it will be available in the Vote Office shortly.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

We needed it earlier.

[Mr Lansley]

I will read the text out if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to. Rightly, we said that we would clarify the answers given, and that is what the text does: it clarifies the issues relating to Kilmarnock, the Vale of Glamorgan and the Scottish and Northern Irish Yeomanry headquarters. Therefore, that will be available for Members. I regret that we did not share the documents in advance, provide the documents referred to on time, or give the House all the information necessary to respond to the statement. We owe the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) and other colleagues an apology for that, and on behalf of the Government I give that apology. We will endeavour to ensure that it does not happen again.

The hon. Lady asked about responses to parliamentary questions. As she knows, I am proud of the fact that, during my time as Secretary of State, the Department of Health, a busy Department that is asked many questions, responded to questions on time in 99% or sometimes 100% of cases, a record that it has maintained following my departure. I know that the Secretary of State for Education and the permanent secretary at the Department are acutely aware of the need to raise their performance. I share with the Secretary of State the desire to ensure that, in doing so, good prose is used. My personal preference is for colleagues, when composing answers, to pay more attention to Sir Ernest Gowers than to Jane Austen, but that is just a matter of taste.

Barbeques in Downing street is not really a matter for business questions, but the hon. Lady does not seem to realise that we are united while Labour is run by Unite. That is the difference. We would love to see her at the barbeque. Perhaps she would like to come. If she does so, we can use the opportunity to see what her position is on a referendum on the future of this country in Europe. We are determined to give the people of this country that choice and to secure the best interests of this country through a negotiation of its relationship with the rest of Europe. Looking at the business before the summer recess, I hope that there will be a further opportunity for a debate in Opposition time. She might like to use that to go beyond the debate that the Opposition had on lobbying and to consider third party influence in the political system. We will bring forward a Bill relating to that issue, but the Labour party, before it deals with any motes in anyone else’s eye, must take the beam out of its own eye, which is that it is run by the trade unions. It is a party where third-party influence is rife. It is a party where 81% of its funding comes from the trade unions, and that does not just buy influence; it apparently buys the opportunity to select Labour party parliamentary candidates. That is an outrage. The legislation we introduce will not change that situation, but it is in the gift of the Labour party to do it, and the fact that it has not and that the Leader of the Opposition does not do it is a demonstration of how weak he is in his own party, as he would be in any other situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an issue that I can imagine is of significant concern to his constituents and others in the area. Although it is not an immediate responsibility of the Government, this is something that I know my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport dealing with the governance of football take seriously and I shall of course raise it with them. I know that they will respond to my hon. Friend, so that he can keep his constituents informed of what the circumstances are and what the Government’s view may be.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) for giving me some leeway to raise this issue.

I have now seen a copy of the written ministerial statement, which the Library received at 10.43, although it is actually a draft, so perhaps we should not be too confident about it. The WMS contains no details of the number of personnel who will lose their job or have to move, or what the requirements are for each of the bases; it does not provide any moving dates; it does not say which constituencies personnel are going to; it does not state if they are moving locally; it does not give the base locations in any of the cities; and it does not explain how Kilmarnock ended up, in handwriting, on the list. May we have a proper statement from the Ministry of Defence at the earliest opportunity—perhaps even on Monday?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman knows that many of the matters he raises would not have formed part of the original circulation of documents. I have made very clear our regret that the information that should have been available when the Secretary of State sat down at the end of his statement was not available at that time. The information, in so far as it was incorrect at the time it was given to him, is being corrected in the written ministerial statement, but as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there are further questions to which he wishes to have answers. I will of course ensure that my hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence take note of those questions and respond to him as soon as they can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I will continue to ensure that we make the information that is provided to the House available as quickly as we can. As I say, I had the language of the written ministerial statement shortly before I stood up, but I did not have it in a form that I could distribute to Members and I was not confident that it was in the Vote Office at that point.

[Thomas Docherty]

It was not.

Wright Committee

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Allen]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. In looking to improve around the margins some of the things that the Backbench Business Committee does, we should not miss the big picture. The Committee has been an incredibly powerful change, it is progress for the House and it gives us great courage and strength when considering what further the House could do. At the time of the recommendation, people were saying, “This is ridiculous. These people will be out of control. They will be doing pet topics. It depends who seizes control of the Committee, and it will be absolute chaos.” Well, people should look at private Members’ Bills if they want to talk about chaos—they are another issue that needs to be resolved and cleaned up. The Backbench Business Committee has proved that the House is capable of executing its own business and agenda responsibly and maturely, and it gives us great faith that that could happen in the proper context of a House business committee.

There are other things that we need to consider, and I have mentioned private Members’ Bills. What a shameful farce it is to talk to members of the public about the process for private Members’ Bills. The process has always been a farce, and it needs to be cleaned up so that the House can proceed with a small number of Bills—perhaps only three or four—that are guaranteed to be given a Second Reading and to go into Committee, if a majority in the House agrees. Such Bills could be voted down if the Government do not like them, but we should end the nonsense of talking stuff out, using procedural tricks and all the other stuff that just brings the House and Members into disrepute. Let us be honest about private Members’ Bills.

There are many other things. Early-day motions are political graffiti. The Wright Committee recommended that a number of motions could be used to secure Members’ debates on the Floor of the House. Again, there would be a small number of occasional debates, but early days could be found so that some credibility is restored to early-day motions, rather than their being used to buy off constituents who have raised a particular issue with their Member of Parliament and feel that signing an early-day motion will change something. Let us actually create a process through which we can change something where there is sufficient cross-party support for an early-day motion.

The Government’s abuse of petitioning also needs to be addressed. The Government have stuck their nose into e-petitioning and have misrepresented what it can do. They have tried to foist the consequences on to the Backbench Business Committee and the legislature. We should send e-petitioning back to the Government and say, “If the Government are petitioned, they must answer and respond.” If people wish to petition and e-petition the House separately asking for a proper debate, the House should take that seriously, but it should not be given a ceiling. Editors in newsrooms tell their journalists they have to pump up the numbers so that they can press the House to have a vote on something that is on their agenda; petitions should be given back to the people. The Government should separate from Parliament on petitioning, and we should address petitions in our own way internally. Hopefully, it will result in a number of debates taking place on which people have genuinely petitioned the House.

We also need to revisit the inadvertent squeeze on minority parties caused by the changes. The Wright Committee proposed that the Speaker be allowed to nominate one person to Select Committees. That power would be used wisely, I am sure, by the incumbent, who would ensure that minority parties were represented where they otherwise would not be.

The question of filling casual vacancies on Select Committees needs to be addressed, and will become ever more pressing as we approach an election and colleagues leave Select Committees, some to go into Government and some to defend a marginal seat a little more assiduously than they attend Select Committees. Some Select Committees are already experiencing that pressure. The question must be addressed now, and as the Executive control Parliament, they must address it, rather than letting it happen and then saying, “Look, these people can’t even fill the Select Committees.” It is the Government who cannot fill casual vacancies in Select Committees. Committee members are not elected. Those vacancies need to be filled—again, ironically—by the very people whom Select Committees hold to account.

I have two last items of unfinished business. One main item is pre-legislative scrutiny. We have invented pre-legislative scrutiny because legislative scrutiny is so pathetic. We have a new process, for which I was partly responsible, but it is a convention, so when very important matters come before the House, it is open to Government to ram them through. When the Government need to react to the media or tomorrow’s newspapers, they can introduce a Bill.

A classic recent example is the lobbying Bill, which will have no formal pre-legislative scrutiny. It will be rushed forward, even though my Select Committee considered the issue and produced a serious report more than a year ago. The Government have not replied to that report. They are pretty casual about replying—“There’s no real need; let’s just chill out and do it when we’re ready”—but given a couple of scandals, they react: “We’ve got to show we’re doing something.” Even though what they are doing has no relevance to the two cases that recently hit the headlines, they are ramming the Bill through quickly to get it into the sausage machine. Prostituting Parliament in that way will not make people respect the laws that are finally produced.

Pre-legislative scrutiny is important. It is not a nice add-on; it should be central business of this House, and in my opinion, it should be in our Parliament’s Standing Orders that as well as Second Reading, Report and consideration by the Lords, pre-legislative scrutiny should be mandatory unless the Speaker, in an emergency, says that it should not take place.

The final issue that needs to be tackled is Report. If there is a Member here who feels that Report is a good process and shows the House in a great light, I will gladly give way. It is shameful how Government and their administrators abuse the House of Commons by flooding the Order Paper with late amendments. Not content to do so on Report in the Commons, they then do the same in the House of Lords and when the Bill returns to the House of Commons. They are treating the House with absolute contempt. It is one of the hallmarks of our subservience to the Executive that we tolerate it and see it as a sensible way to do our business. It is not. It should be sorted out, and when it is, we may have a Parliament worthy of the name.

The Wright Committee did a great job. Tony Wright, the Chair, did an absolutely magnificent job of steering it. Its recommendations were not picked up by the then Labour Government—they were blocked—but we finally made some progress in the early days of the new Government. We must remember that next time: a solemn and binding promise agreed by not one but two parties—arguably, by three—has been broken.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Allen]

My colleague on the Front Bench shakes his head. Do I take it from that that the Labour party in Parliament did not agree with the creation of a House business committee?

[Thomas Docherty]

indicated assent.

[Mr Allen]

He affirms that that is the case, which I think is sad, and it proves how much work we all have to do if we get into government and do something with government other than just change the bums on the seats. There is an awful lot of work still to do, but the Wright Committee has made great progress.

As far as I am concerned, this debate should be a signal to those who believe that we should have a strong and independent Parliament that it is possible to win small victories, but we must ensure in the longer term that we continue to make our democracy into something with Parliament at the heart of it, where the parliamentary interest is separate, and hopefully separately elected, from the Government interest, which needs to be properly elected and legitimised. When that day comes, we will have two strong institutions working together. Our democracy will be stronger for it, and our nation will too.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on a powerful speech. I entirely agree with its content, so I shall go a little—in fact, a lot—further and faster. I think that his reluctance to do so is due to the fact that unfortunately, he has spent a bit of time in the Whips Office, which does something to dent the spirit.

When I first came to the House in 2005, I had a whole mound of mail, which I spent most of my time throwing in the bin. I opened an envelope, and there was a little book signed by the author, Graham Allen. It was an interesting book about the relationship with the Prime Minister: was he now actually the President? I could not put it down, and I have treasured it. It was nice to get it, but it was also a well-argued book.

One of the debates that the book raises is whether we should have separation of powers and an Executive that is completely independent of Parliament. On balance, I think that is a bad thing, because we have the wonderful opportunity, even if only on a Wednesday now, to ask the head of the Executive questions. There are still advantages to how our system works. However, the problem is that people in opposition who want to be in government or become Prime Minister can analyse things correctly and sensibly. When the current Prime Minister was in opposition, he produced a wonderful speech called “Fixing Broken Politics”, which I urge every Member to read. Everything in it is right. He decided how he was going to correct things. He is now Prime Minister, and none of those things have been corrected. I argue that in many cases, they have got worse.

There are a lot of things that we could easily do to bring Parliament back, even just a little. We can only move the pendulum back a bit at the moment, but one simple thing that we could do is restore Prime Minister’s questions to twice a week, and have one occasion on a Thursday. At the moment, Members come down late on Monday for a vote in the evening, and on Wednesday evening, after Prime Minister’s questions, they want to go. One thing that I have never understood is why so many Members work so hard to be elected and come to this place when, once they are here, all they want to do is get away from it. It is an extraordinary state of affairs. Regrettably, this debate is not particularly well attended. It should be packed. This is what parliamentarians should care about.

[Thomas Docherty]

May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that what we lack in quantity we make up for in quality?

[Mr Bone]

As the hon. Gentleman and I recently slept together—[Laughter.] I must explain that a little; it was an attempt by the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), who is in the Chamber, another colleague and me to take a little power back from the Executive. We spent four nights sleeping outside the Table Office, so that we were first in the queue for presentation Bills. We presented about 50 Bills last week; we took that power away from the Executive, so that we could introduce Bills. One of the Bills that I introduced was for an allowance for married couples, which I did not realise that the Chancellor was to take up this very week. In a small way, doing such things achieves something, although it is ridiculous that we have to spend four nights sleeping in a small attic room to take a little power back for Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, although he may hear one such wish, because I am not sure yet. I do not trust the Government or the shadow Executive on the subject. I think that they will say, “Because the Backbench Business Committee is great, that is doing Back-Bench business. The other committee, therefore, must be for the Executive”—a business committee would be an Executive one. That is the danger.

If we have a proper committee for the business of the House, it should have no members of the Executive or shadow Executive on it, it should be elected by the House and it should produce a timetable that is amendable and can be voted on—that might go a little further than the hon. Gentleman intended. That is the real way to do things. We are a grown-up place; if we are to be a Parliament, that is how it should work. Otherwise, perhaps we should go completely the other way and have separation of powers. At the moment, however, we have a pretend Parliament on so many different issues. It breaks my heart that, with rare exceptions, Parliament does not bite back.

Recently, we have had two good examples of how Parliament does and does not work. On same-sex marriages, because all the party leaders and their Front Benchers agreed with it, the Bill was rammed through Parliament without proper debate, and many amendments were not even reached. That was completely what is wrong with Parliament. The week before, we had the amendment to the Queen’s Speech, arising from a revolt among Back-Bench Members that had resulted, unbelievably, within the week, in the Government completely changing their policy on an issue, because Parliament had said, “This is what we want to happen.” We need more of that, and less of stuff being rammed through.

There is so much we can do, but I am disappointed, because I do not think we will achieve any of it. The Deputy Leader of the House will give us a wonderful explanation of why we have not had the business committee in three years. It will be an absolutely wonderful explanation and it will be, of course, total rubbish, because I know the reason why we have not had that committee. I know what the Government care about because of where I sit in the House of Commons. You probably know, Mr Crausby, that I sit on the second Bench, behind the Ministers and the Whips. Any time there is discussion of the business committee of the House, the Whips, including the Leader of the House and Chief Whip, say, “Over my dead body!” I assume that that is what the Deputy Leader of the House will tell us. The Whips are completely opposed to the idea of a business committee of the House—it is just not going to happen.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman must have misspoken. Surely the Chief Whip could not have said, “Over my dead body” because it is on the record that the Chief Whip was a huge enthusiast in his previous job for a business committee and surely he cannot have changed his mind now that he is a Whip.

[Mr Bone]

Was that before he became the Government Chief Whip?

[Thomas Docherty]

Yes.

[Mr Bone]

I think we have answered the question then. It is a wonderful piece of magic that these things happen when people change their position. Having said that, however, if I was sitting on the second Bench on the opposite side of the House of Commons, the Labour Whips would be saying exactly the same as the Government Whips, and that is the problem. It is not as if the Opposition are pushing for a business committee; they are not. The Opposition are muted—they say nothing—and I am really sad about that. I hope that what the hon. Member for Nottingham North has said today highlights the problem and I also hope that colleagues take it up. There may be a window of opportunity at the beginning of the next Parliament, but at the moment I see that we are going backwards rather than forwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I am grateful, Mr Crausby, to have the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship. As I said to you last night, I think that this is the first time that I have had such a pleasure. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on securing the debate. The discussion has been quite lively and thought provoking. Unfortunately, I do not agree with all his analysis, not least the point about separation of powers. There is an excellent book called “Plain, Honest Men”, which I commend to him. It is about the constitutional convention in Philadelphia. It is a thought-provoking book that gives some idea as to why the United States has a separation of powers between the Executive and the legislature, but like many things from the United States, it is in itself a reason not to go down that route. Parliament would be weaker if we separated our Executive from our legislature in the way that I think my hon. Friend was alluding to.

[Mr Allen]

I shall send my hon. Friend my book, which is called “The Last Prime Minister: Being Honest About the UK Presidency”. If he reads mine, I shall read his.

[Thomas Docherty]

That is a splendid offer. I look forward to receiving the book.

There are seven or eight points that I would like to respond to in the limited time that I have. First, this might be heresy to some colleagues, but the Wright report is not a panacea. There is now this mythology that somehow it got everything right. I think that it is about time that a reality check was applied to that. This Parliament has made huge strides towards modernisation, but not just because of the Wright report. There are three other factors that have changed the dynamic of this Parliament compared with previous ones.

One factor is the 2010 intake of Members. I do not say that just because that was my intake; we have seen that it has been the most rebellious of intakes. In the excellent blog by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), he busts the myths about some of the rebellions that have taken place on the Government side and he points out that some of the most effective and important rebellions were led by Members who were part of the 2010 intake. I am referring to the entirely sensible pushing back against the Deputy Prime Minister’s nonsensical ideas for House of Lords reform, the EU budget vote that took place and what happened on the EU referendum. Those rebellions were all led by Members from the 2010 intake. They have been much more effective and much more willing to challenge their own Government than perhaps was the case in previous Parliaments.

The second factor is Mr Speaker. I am a huge fan of the current Speaker. He has changed how Parliament engages with the wider public and the use of urgent questions. I think that in the last Session, there were 130 days on which an urgent question was granted to hold the Executive to account. That should be commended.

Thirdly—this is not a good change—there is the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. IPSA has changed how Members of Parliament operate. It has driven Members away from taking part in Parliament. I think that, so far, Professor Wright has failed to change IPSA now that he is a board member and that he needs to be held to account for that failure to curb IPSA’s worst excesses.

On Select Committees, I agree that we have some very effective Select Committees, but—I say this very gently—there has been a contradiction today. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North applauded the fact that the choice of Select Committee members has been taken out of the hands of the Whips, but later he bemoaned the fact that keeping hold of Select Committee members as we get closer to the general election becomes harder and harder. This is a valid point. One problem that we have is that because they were elected by colleagues from their own party, many Members went on to Select Committees on the basis of their name. They arrived in the House in the 2010 intake with a reputation from outside and were elected on to Select Committees, but they have not been very effective performers in many cases. We must recognise the drawbacks.

If I may criticise the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North—

[Michael Connarty]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Thomas Docherty]

May I just finish this point?

I think that the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North meets on the wrong day of the week, at the wrong time. It is an excellent Select Committee—he has mentioned its work on lobbying, for example—but unfortunately it clashes with the highlight of the week, which is business questions. I think that if he moved it off the Thursday morning, he would have many people coming before it or wanting to take part in it.

[Michael Connarty]

I just want my hon. Friend to clarify his criticism of those Members who go on to Select Committees. Is he suggesting that the Whips should put Members on Select Committees regardless of their aspirations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. My point is that this is a balancing act. We should not consider that simply having had an election has made the system better, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North said, some Select Committees are struggling to get quoracy because Members were put on them at the start of the Parliament and have lost interest, been promoted or whatever else. There is also a broader point about whether Front Benchers should routinely be allowed to serve on Select Committees. I think that, in the previous Parliament, that happened. Many members of what was then the Conservative Opposition served on Select Committees. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but on the Education Committee, the Defence Committee and others, there were Front Benchers who served, and there is merit in that, because Select Committees have more opportunity to learn about the intricacies of a Department than Oppositions do.

[Mr Allen]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Thomas Docherty]

I will not, because I am conscious of the time and my hon. Friend was given half an hour at the start.

I also disagree about the Intelligence and Security Committee. That must be dealt with by the usual channels, because of the very sensitive work that that Committee, by its very nature, undertakes. The Defence Committee struggled earlier in this Parliament, because, as we all know, there was a problem with one of its members. Not just our Government but other Governments refused to share information with the Defence Committee, because they believed that one of its members was unsound. We need to be very careful about the Intelligence and Security Committee and where we get to with that.

A number of points were made about things such as private Members’ Bills and early-day motions. Let me gently point to the fact that the Procedure Committee has either published reports or is in the process of publishing reports on those two issues. I say to the House that it is worth waiting just a couple more weeks until we get those reports.

The issue of the petitioning system was raised. I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House wrote just last week to both the Backbench Business Committee and the Procedure Committee to invite them to look at the whole petition system—both electronic and written petitions. Again, I refer to the three previous reports from the Procedure Committee about e-petitions. I hope that when the motion comes forward in my name and that of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), all Members will put it through on the nod to allow e-petitions that reach the threshold to be the subject of a Westminster Hall debate on a Monday afternoon. That worked pretty well in the last Session, and I hope that it continues.

On the House business committee, let me clear up the matter once and for all. As the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), said in front of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee just a few weeks ago, the Opposition remain deeply sceptical about the House business committee. Even after three and a half years, the Government have yet to come up with proposals. We therefore welcome the fact that on 20 June the Leader of the House confirmed—and provided some certainty in the debate—that the Government do not propose to bring forward a House business committee. It could be argued that this is a bit like the proverbial tree falling over in a wood. The Leader of the House has, by my estimation, now said three times that the Government do not plan to bring forward a House business committee, yet we continue to have a discussion about when he is bringing one forward, so we welcome that certainty.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) made quite a lengthy contribution about explanatory statements. Let me gently point him to order 47 in the “Future Business” section of the Order Paper, which is in my name and the names of the Deputy Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House, the Leader of the House and the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. It precisely says that there shall be explanatory statements on a permissive basis and that the House will provide such assistance as is required. I hope that he will add his name to it. [Interruption.] It has to be permissive—I hope that I can eat into the time of the Deputy Leader of the House by 30 seconds—because there will be times when it is common sense that an explanatory statement is not required. I do not think that it requires the time or effort to produce an explanatory statement if all we are doing is changing a date, for example from “2017” to 2014”—to take a private Member’s Bill that may be debated. Furthermore, we cannot bind the Speaker’s hand so that he will accept only amendments for which there are explanatory statements. I gently refer my right hon. Friend to the Procedure Committee’s fourth report of 2012-13, which sets out why that is the case.

I am conscious that I am eating into the time of the Deputy Leader of the House. I commend the debate and I hope I have provided some clarity.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby, and to respond to this timely debate on the implementation of the Wright Committee’s outstanding recommendations.

We are in the third year of this Parliament, which provides an opportunity to reflect on the success of recent reforms and allows time to deliver further reform in this Parliament, where the case for such reform is made. Before addressing the points raised by Members, which relate to the outstanding recommendations, I would like briefly to reflect on what has been delivered, because there is a positive story to tell. The reform Committee made 50 recommendations in its report, and a majority have been implemented in full or require no further action—in other words, those cases where there was a statement of principle, for example. Specific achievements that directly relate to the recommendations include the election of Select Committee Chairs; the election of Deputy Speakers; the ability to debate substantive motions; the provision of Monday afternoons in Westminster Hall for debates on e-petitions, which I hope we are about to renew; the endorsement of September sittings; and, arguably the most important change, the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee.

In addition, I remind Members of the changes we have introduced for the scrutiny of legislation, which a few Members have suggested is wanting in some respects. Some of those changes were made in direct response to recommendations of the reform Committee. They include an increased number of multi-day report stages, so two days on Report is now common for major Bills, although I would not say that it was routine; the increased use of pre-legislative scrutiny, which Members welcome, with 17 sets of measures published in draft last session; and more time for scrutiny: most Public Bill Committees—nearly 80%—in the 2012-13 Session finished early. The changes also include successful pilots on public readings—for example, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 and the Children and Families Bill; and successful pilots of explanatory statements on amendments, and I welcome the fact that that will proceed. I wondered whether the Opposition’s initial reluctance was because they were not certain what their amendments were going to do, but given that they are going to support explanatory statements, that is clearly not the case.

[Thomas Docherty]

Our concern was about not only the official Opposition, but individual Members and minority parties, which do not have the resources. We are not as well served as the Deputy Leader of the House is by his excellent civil servants.

[Tom Brake]

I agree and I understand the point. It was just a cheap jibe, to which the hon. Gentleman responded. The changes also include the use of social media by Select Committees during inquiries and meetings.

Having put on record some of the substantial achievements, I shall respond to some of the points made in our debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on securing the debate. I do not share his rather apocalyptic vision of our parliamentary democracy. He knows that Parliament and the Executive are not separate. I do not believe, as he seems to, that Government are dominating Parliament. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), might have been slightly offended by that suggestion, because it is widely recognised that her Committee has grasped a substantial proportion of what was previously Government time and on the back of that initiated a series of important debates, a third of which have taken place on days other than Thursday. They do not always take place on Thursdays, but as she commented, Thursday is a sitting day. Many of us spent many years campaigning to secure our positions in Parliament, so one would expect Members to be willing to work or stay on Thursdays to participate in debates that take place then.

I think the hon. Member for Nottingham North encouraged me to push reform, if not in government then certainly in a future Liberal Democrat manifesto. David Howarth, who is no longer a Member of Parliament, did a good job of pushing that agenda when he was here, and he continues to do so. I am sure we will want to return to this matter in a future manifesto. We have achieved a substantial amount. The hon. Gentleman threw down the gauntlet to me—as did other Members, including the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher)—over the creation of a House business committee, and I will throw down the gauntlet gently in his face, to mix my metaphors. The Government’s position is that if there were a House business committee proposal on the table it would have to pass certain tests, and some Members outlined what those tests should be. The Government should retain control of their legislative programme, and the committee should respect the remit of the Backbench Business Committee; it should take into account the views of all parts of the House; it should retain the flexibility to change the business at short notice in response to fast-moving events; and it should co-ordinate business with the House of Lords, to which I do not think any Member referred. If any Members came forward with such a proposal, I am sure that other Ministers and I would want to look at it carefully.

Lobbying

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Of course, what he is telling the House is that the Labour Government did nothing for 13 years. Two months before the general election, when they no longer expecting to be in power, they said that they might do something in the future. He said that the Government’s amendment was not clear about our commitment, but it

“welcomes the Government’s commitment to bring forward legislation before the summer recess”—

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

When?

[Mr Lansley]

I am about to say when: before this summer recess. For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman that is 18 July, not next summer recess:

“before the summer recess to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists”

within three years. That was in the coalition Government’s programme. His Government did not do anything.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer). Let me pick up on his last point: what we are after is transparency. I think there is agreement across the House on the need for transparency and to ensure that big business, big money and big power are accountable in politics. Today’s debate is very much about how best to try to achieve that or, at least, to find a starting point.

I was grateful that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) began, as many other Members have, by stressing the importance of good lobbying and the fact that we in Parliament cannot do our jobs without a degree of lobbying. Members have obviously mentioned their constituents and, like the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, I have regular surgeries across 3,800 square miles. I travelled 207 miles last weekend to do surgeries at diametrically opposite ends of the constituency, celebrating national care homes day by visiting all the registered homes in the constituency.

At my constituency surgery in Alness, a lady came to ask me about the regulations for herbalists. I have written to the Minister on her behalf and I consider that to be absolutely the kind of thing I should be doing as a constituency MP. On another level, as a member of the Treasury Committee and a former member of the now completed Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, I have received a considerable amount of evidence from a wide range of bodies. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish whether they are giving me evidence or lobbying me. I am absolutely certain that in both cases my ability to have a reasoned discussion with the witnesses who have appeared before me has depended on my ability to access different points of view and different thoughts coming from different parts of the financial services industry.

It is right that we should be open to lobbying in the sense that we should hear what different people have to say. Our job is to assess what is said and come to a reasonable decision in our deliberations, whether in Select Committee or when considering legislation. As sometimes happens, the tendency to dismiss lobbyists and lobbying as a wrong process is to misunderstand how Parliament should work.

We are really talking about access to power for the purposes of diverting what power might otherwise do. Part of the problem that we will have with the legislation is working out where power is. With Ministers, it is pretty straightforward. If I go and lobby the Secretary of State for Energy about what is happening at Dounreay, it is pretty clear why I have gone to see him. If Babcock does the same, it is also pretty clear what is happening. The problem is when people have access to those in power in a way that is not revealed. An example was given this morning when Sir Mervyn King made his last appearance before the Treasury Select Committee. The Chairman asked him a question about lessons learned. He said that one of the most important things was that the Prudential Regulation Authority, the body that will control the banks, had the support of Ministers and Parliament such that the kind of lobbying that took place in the past—when bankers went to their supervisors to ask for a lighter judgment on supervision and the telephone calls he mentioned to No. 11 and sometimes No. 10—could not happen. That is what we really have to seek to expose.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman cited Babcock. That is a prime example that shows why the Bill must cover everyone. Babcock is a multinational company that has a rail division, a nuclear division and a defence division. Simply to say that Babcock has been to see a Minister provides no transparency. So it has to be all lobbyists.

[John Thurso]

I am going to disagree with the hon. Gentleman in a moment for a simple reason. In relation to visiting a Minister, the key is not in the Bill or in any legislation that we might pass. The key is the ministerial code; the key is the fact that the visits by that company or any other company will be published. I agree with hon. Members who said that there should be more information; wider detail should be published about meetings. At the moment, the quarterly register often just says “general discussion”, and that is not good enough. I urge those who are responsible for the ministerial code to look at toughening it up in some way and perhaps publishing the code a little more often than quarterly. Such things could be done tomorrow; they do not require legislation.

The second point is the difference between in-house and third-party lobbyists. I think we are all going in the same direction, but it seems to me that one has to start somewhere. To me, the third-party lobbyists are a good place to start. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said, it is better to make a start than to go for perfection. If Oxfam turns up to see the Secretary of State for International Development, it is pretty obvious what is going to be talked about. It is far more important that when Messrs Grabit and Nickit turn up to lobby on behalf of an unknown firm, we have a registration of who they are and what they do. That is far more important than making every single company that has someone in house working for them register that fact.

In my party’s 2001 conference motion on regulation of professional parliamentary lobbying, which I am sure was on everyone’s lips at the time, we said:

“No parliamentarian … at Westminster should be a director of, an employee of, receive any reward from or hold a stake in any of the duly registered professional parliamentary lobbying companies. … A statutory register of such professional lobbying firms should be set up and supervised by the Commissioner on Parliamentary Standards.”

In 2006, my colleague David Howarth, the then Member for Cambridge, sought to insert an amendment into the Companies Bill to cap the amount spent on lobbying. The then Government declined to accept it. So my party has a long history of seeking to do something about lobbying. The important thing now is to be clear who is doing the lobbying. That is why registering the professional lobbyists is so important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have had the same experience. I then have to dig into my files and discover the original document. I send that back to the constituent, who is often quite surprised to discover that they have been encouraged to lobby me in that way.

[Thomas Docherty]

I find myself agreeing with the hon. Lady. Does she accept that what her own Government are proposing would not cover charities or organisations like 38 Degrees?

[Harriett Baldwin]

What I accept is that the Government are the ones taking the steps to publish meetings with organisations that represent themselves with their public affairs professionals. The Government are doing much more in the way of transparency than the Opposition were able to do in 13 years of power. I would love to see members of the shadow Cabinet publish details of their meetings, and I strongly hope that as a result of my persuasive remarks this afternoon, those are steps that the Opposition will soon take.