Delegated Legislation

Debate between Tom Brake and Rosie Winterton

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I was merely saying what the options were, and the option does remain for a statement to be made if the Adjournment went on until 7 o’clock.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You helpfully clarified that the Adjournment could continue until 7 o’clock tonight, should the Government wish to come and make a statement. It may be that not everyone present has prepared a speech that is relevant to the Adjournment debate on police employer pension contributions that will take place, so would you allow some leniency, scope and flexibility in the contributions that Members might wish to make to that debate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Members can speak, but they have to speak to the subject of the debate. Their remarks must obviously be related to police employer pension contributions.

Point of Order

Debate between Tom Brake and Rosie Winterton

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to ensure that the record of the House is correct in relation to last week’s debate on the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill. During that debate, I referred to an incident, as reported in column 840 of Hansard:

“Many people will remember what happened a couple of years ago when a huge tailback occurred at Dover. Apparently, it was triggered by two French police officers based in Dover not turning up for their shift, and that led to a 15-mile tailback.”

I was subsequently intervened on a couple of times by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who, in his second intervention, said:

“The causes were very clear… The right hon. Gentleman”—

that is, me—

“is just plain wrong.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2018; Vol. 643, c. 840-842.]

I went back to the port of Dover to confirm that the incident that I referred to was indeed caused by an absence of French police officers, or a small number of French police officers being present. The hon. Gentleman may have suggested, perhaps inadvertently, that I was “plain wrong” in describing that incident, but the port of Dover has confirmed that I was plain right in the way that I described it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of this matter. He has put his views very clearly on the record. Of course, if the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) feels that he has been inaccurate, it is open to him to correct the record. I suspect that there may be a difference of opinion—Members often do have different points of view—but, as I say, the right hon. Gentleman has put his views on the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

As I suspected, there is a difference of opinion here. No doubt, these discussions will continue, but I think that both the right hon. Gentlemen and the hon. Gentleman have put their points of view on the record, so the best thing for us to do—

[Tom Brake]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I do not think there is anything more to be said on this matter at this stage, and I would now like to move on.

Points of Order

Debate between Tom Brake and Rosie Winterton

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a parliamentary written answer on 12 January 2018 the Minister for the Armed Forces stated:

“The UK will remain completely committed to European defence and security after we leave the European Union”,

yet 48 hours ago it was announced that the UK is withdrawing from providing the battle group in 2019. Is there a way in which I can hold the Government to account on what appears to be a substantial policy change, which has not been announced in this place but has in fact been announced as a result of a leak to a newspaper?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he planned to raise this matter, and I know that he has been vigorous in pursuing the issue through parliamentary questions. As he knows, there are many other routes that he can pursue, including, I am sure, forthcoming Government statements on, for example, the European Council, but his concern will have been heard on the Treasury Bench and I am sure it will be taken back to the Department concerned.

Members’ Paid Directorships and Consultancies

Debate between Tom Brake and Rosie Winterton

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I had to fight the temptation to start and finish my speech by saying, “I refer the House to my speech from 17 July 2013, column 1165”, when the Opposition tabled the very same motion. As they have clearly not attempted to address any of the issues raised in that debate—the deficiencies of which were pointed out by some Labour Members and have been pointed out again by the Leader of the House today, and the motion was rightly rejected—I think I could quite legitimately have dusted down the same speech.

The last debate was a car crash of the most epic proportions after which many expected a Bennett-style apology from the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett). He said today—I think he has repeated some of the same errors—that this debate was about second jobs, but it is clear that he has not read his own motion which makes no reference to second jobs. We all know why Labour has chosen to re-run this debate. It heard that bell ringing on the bandwagon, started salivating at the prospect of some political nourishment, and leapt on it.

I do not for one moment suggest that the actions of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) should not be investigated—they should, and they were right to refer themselves to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The code of conduct is clear in stating what is and is not acceptable, and I am sure that the commissioner will investigate those cases thoroughly to see whether the rules have been observed or broken.

If this was a genuine attempt by Labour to address in a cross-party way public concerns about trust in MPs and their outside interests, the Leader of the Opposition needed to do much more than his half-hearted effort at Prime Minister’s questions to engage with the other parties. Before getting on their high horse, Labour Members should consider how many on their Benches are effectively in the pocket of the unions, taking their money and giving their questions and speeches in the House in return. Will Labour seek to clamp down on that?

What about party funding? There is a wider issue about too much money sloshing around in politics. That is why we have always argued that there should be limits on donations because the more we can get big money out of politics, the better. What about political reform? Surely it is not a coincidence that the worst expenses abuses involved MPs in safe seats. The more genuine competition that all MPs face, the more likely high standards are to be maintained. What are effectively jobs for life in safe seats clearly risk breeding a certain kind of culture.

Surely this debate is not about forcing MPs to stop practising as lawyers or doctors, or to drop an interest in a family business. The scandals arise when parliamentarians use their privileged positions and contacts to try to earn huge amounts of money by lobbying for business. If parties are serious about cleaning up politics, they should ditch the rhetoric and work on a cross-party basis to end those cash for access cases once and for all.

More positively, it is clear that the House is agreed that it is the responsibility of all of us to uphold the highest standards and that the vast majority of Members do so. Our rules against paid advocacy are essential, and breaches of them should be punished. Efforts to ensure maximum transparency and accountability must always be maintained. The Government have a strong record and we will maintain that record. It has been evident from the debate, however, that if there is a problem to be solved, the motion from the Opposition does nothing to provide a solution.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) that we do not want vacuous functionaries in this place and that we want a diversity of Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) rightly highlighted the partnership issue. If the Opposition were serious about addressing directorships and consultancies, why miss out the whole issue of partnerships? My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) sensibly explained that it would be easy for directors to avoid the Opposition’s proposals by becoming unpaid directors. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) rightly highlighted the anti-politics movement that is abroad at present, and said that we each have a duty to act responsibly in this place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) also touched on the issue of partnerships, and I am very pleased that he has picked up the baton from me as the Member who deals with the most delegated legislation. I commiserate with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) on being the poor relation in terms of entries on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I have one unpaid directorship as a director of a local environmental charity, EcoLocal. I made it clear in my election campaign back in 1997 that I would not take any paid directorships or consultancies. I went into the campaign on that basis and my Conservative opponent made it clear that he would continue to hold his directorships. A choice was therefore presented to the electorate and that is what they need. The electorate should be able to choose. If Members want to maintain an interest and they make that clear, it is up to the electorate to decide whether they accept that. Saying that I would not take any outside work did not do me any harm, and I suspect that one of the reasons I won the seat was that my opponent said that he would maintain his paid directorships and consultancies. But that is a decision for the electorate to make, not any of the parties.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) was very brave in sticking his head above the parapet on MPs’ pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) made an interesting point, which no one else picked up on, about the increased patronage that would result from the changes that have been proposed, by putting power in the hands of the party leaders.

The House will have noticed the contrast in approaches. The Opposition are trying to boost their green credentials by recycling this debate from 20 months ago. How have they used the time since that motion was defeated? They have no new ideas, no clarity and no substance. In contrast, the Government are committed to promoting transparency in terms of Members’ relations with the public and the political system as a whole. We have taken measures including a statutory register of consultant lobbyists; legislating for the recall of Members of Parliament; strengthening the rules governing business appointments for Ministers on leaving office; and proactively publishing details of Ministers’ meetings with external organisations, and of Ministers’ and officials’ meetings with senior media executives. Those measures will bring greater accountability and transparency to our democracy. That needs constant effort and reflection—

[Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.