Members’ Paid Directorships and Consultancies
Tony Baldry Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that we all want to get this right. Very often in debate all that it has been necessary to say is, “I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.” Just to be absolutely clear, I think that what you have said means that we will all have to recite into the record exactly what is in our entry in the register. If that is what you would like us to do when called to speak, I for one am happy to do it. It will take a little time, but I am very willing to do it in the interests of transparency.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The answer is very straightforward, and it is twofold: first, of course individual Members must take responsibility for what they say in this House when they rise to their feet; and secondly, very simply, the interest in question has to be sufficiently clear to be informative to the House in the context of the debate. It is a very straightforward point and I have now made it twice. I hope that it is clear to all right hon. and hon. Members.
Mr Speaker
Order. A significant number of Members are seeking to catch my eye. As always, I want to try to accommodate colleagues, so I am afraid that there has to be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Sir Tony Baldry
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It will take me five minutes to read out my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. [Laughter.] It is not fair: I must be given at least five minutes to make my speech.
Mr Speaker
I did not say, nobody said and “Erskine May” does not state that a Member has to read out a list. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, not least to himself, but I did not say that; I said that an interest needs to be made clear to the House.
We need a time limit because I want to try to accommodate colleagues, the first of whom to contribute is Sir Alan Duncan.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in what, according to the House of Commons Library, will be my 650th contribution to proceedings in this Parliament. That puts me well in the top per cent. of all Members of Parliament, including Ministers, for contributions. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which is to be found on page 11. I am a practising barrister, the director of two public companies and three private companies, and a partner in a film partnership.
The resolution tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and others does not seek to ban Members of Parliament from pursuing outside interests as such: the motion is simply to ban certain types of outside interest. May I suggest that there is no logic, either practical or in terms of public policy, in what the Opposition suggest? The motion seeks solely to ban Members of Parliament from being paid company directors or consultants. I am at somewhat of a loss to understand why the Opposition think it appropriate to ban a Member of Parliament from being a director of a limited company, but if that is what they want, why would they consider it appropriate for a Member of Parliament to be a partner in a limited liability partnership? Why should I be banned from being a company director, but allowed to continue to be a partner?
Under the terms of the motion, it would be acceptable for a Member of Parliament to have an outside interest as a farmer, providing that interest was expressed by way of being a partner in a farm partnership, but the same Member of Parliament would be unable to pursue effectively the same activity if, instead of being a partner in a farm partnership, he were a director in a limited liability company undertaking exactly the same commercial activity.
Under the terms of this motion, it would be possible for Members of Parliament to have any second interests if they were self-employed interests. It would be possible for Members of Parliament to continue to be authors, journalists, television commentators, and stockbrokers, providing the stockbroking was done by way of a partnership. The provision in the motion simply to seek to ban Members of Parliament from being company directors is, I suggest, somewhat capricious, and owes little, if anything, to logic. I am afraid it simply reflects the desire of the Leader of the Opposition to jump on any passing bandwagon.
There is a wholly credible, intellectual case for saying that Members of Parliament can hold no outside interests whatever, and there is a wholly credible, intellectual case for saying that Members of Parliament can hold outside interests, subject to rules on transparency and accountability, but what holds no intellectual credibility is to seek to have a policy which bans certain types of outside interests for Members of Parliament and allows others. Moreover, with respect, it is no good people, including many editors and journalists, complaining that the House of Commons is, from their perspective, increasingly occupied by career politicians who have done nothing else and then, almost in the next breath, advocating the removal from the House of Commons those of us who do bring other experience to this House. As the House will recall, the last time that the Committee on Standards in Public Life considered this matter, it concluded that it was beneficial to Parliament for Members of Parliament to be able to have outside interests.
As the register shows, I am a practising barrister, arbitrator and mediator, and I am also a director of a number of companies, public and private. Under the provisions of this motion, if I were standing at the next general election, it would be permissible for me to continue to practise at the Bar, and to practise as a mediator and arbitrator. If the Opposition consider it acceptable for me as a Member of Parliament to continue to be able to practise as a barrister, mediator or arbitrator, their argument cannot possibly be against having outside interests as such. Why would they consider it acceptable for me to continue to practise as a barrister, but not for me to be a director of public companies? It cannot be a regulatory issue. As a barrister, I am of course, in addition to the general law of the land, subject to regulation by the Bar Council and by the Bar Standards Board, but as a company director I am also bound by the law of the land and subject to supervision by several regulatory bodies—the stock exchange, the UK Listing Authority, the Takeover Panel, and numerous others. This motion is simply grandstanding.
Graham Jones
The House would appreciate it if the right hon. Gentleman would explain how much he gets from outside jobs, and how much time he spends on them away from Parliament. It would illuminate the debate for the House.
Sir Tony Baldry
I have looked at the number of contributions made by those who tabled the motion. The deputy leader of the Labour party is down somewhere in the hundreds, as is the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who will wind up the debate, whereas I have contributed 650 times. If we are to start talking about the effectiveness of Members of Parliament, perhaps Opposition Members should start looking at the beam in their own eye before they look at the mote in their brother’s.
It is for electors to judge the effectiveness of Members. I have always declared my outside interests fully. Indeed, in the last general election, I stated very clearly in my election address that I would continue to pursue my outside interests. I am very proud to have been returned as the Member of Parliament for north Oxfordshire on seven occasions. On the last occasion, my majority was 18,000. The people of north Oxfordshire reposed their trust in me knowing fully, from the day I was first selected, that I was a practising barrister and company director. I have been proud to pursue those professions and occupations while a Member of this House.
Business of the House
Tony Baldry Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
The Home Secretary has done a great deal to knock her Department into shape and continues to do so. The right hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate concern, of course, and I have also seen that report in the newspapers today. I know that the Home Office will want to respond to it and I will draw the Home Secretary’s attention to what he has said. I am sure that there will be opportunities to raise the subject further in this House, including with Home Office Ministers.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
May I thank the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for the cross-party support for the Bill that will enable women who are consecrated diocesan bishops in the Church of England to be nominated for membership of the House of Lords as soon as possible? I thank the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and the usual channels for providing time for that one-clause Bill to be debated on Monday week. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the intention is that if the Commons can cover all stages of the Bill on 19 January there will be time in the other place for the Bill to be passed and enacted during this Parliament so that we can see women bishops in the House of Lords as soon as possible?
Mr Hague
My right hon. Friend has been assiduous in ensuring that the Bill was brought forward in a timely way. He asked a few weeks ago for all of its stages to be dealt with in one day and that is what we will be able to do, subject to the agreement of the allocation of time motion on 19 January. Of course, it is very much the intention that it will be possible for the Bill to receive Royal Assent before the dissolution of Parliament. We would not have introduced it with any other expectation. I am pleased that we have been able to introduce it speedily and I hope that we will be able to consider it speedily, and that they will be to do so in the other place as well.
Business of the House
Tony Baldry Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. People in his constituency and across the country will be deeply moved by the sight of families burying their dead children in such huge numbers. It underlines the need to work together internationally to counter terrorism. The need to do that is one reason we have been debating the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill several times over the past few weeks, and in the first week back we will be devoting two days to its remaining stages. These events underline the importance of that.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
May I welcome the publication today of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill, which will provide the opportunity to fast-track into the House of Lords women consecrated as diocesan bishops? My right hon. Friend will know that there was widespread support and rejoicing in both Houses for the Measure to enable women to become bishops in the Church of England, but there was concern that if the rules of seniority prevailed, it might not have been possible for women bishops to be in the House of Lords for perhaps another Parliament. This is a simple measure in a one-clause Bill. Will he confirm that he intends the Bill to be taken in a single day, with a Second Reading in one half and the remaining stages in the other half of the same day?
Mr Hague
The Bill is minutes away from introduction and publication, and this whole issue has indeed been the cause of rejoicing in both Houses, as my right hon. Friend rightly says. I will confirm the arrangements for the handling of the Bill in due course, but he is right that it is a short and simple Bill that should enjoy widespread support. When I come to announce the handling of business, I will certainly hope it can be considered quickly, with these facts in mind.
Devolution (Implications for England)
Tony Baldry Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
Discussion of a constitutional convention is in the Command Paper. We have, of course, provided an opportunity for cross-party discussion of all these issues, and I am happy to provide further opportunities. The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of the issue, which is why we made every effort to ensure this could be a Command Paper issued by three parties together, with parts of it put together by three political parties. His party opted out of that; perhaps he should advise it to do differently in the future.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
The principle of English votes for English laws is unassailable, particularly given now the greater devolution of powers to Scotland, but can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that there is nothing in this Command Paper that will lead to further layers of local or regional government, and that there is nothing in it that will result in extra cost to the taxpayers?
Mr Hague
Yes, I think I can reassure my right hon. Friend about that. None of these options involves additional tiers of government and we are very clear in the proposals we are putting forward on local government and decentralisation that this is working with existing authorities, giving them greater power and giving power at the neighbourhood level. So it does not involve adding to the tiers of government, nor is it intended to add to the expense to the taxpayer.
Business of the House
Tony Baldry Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
There will be much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. As I understand it, the decision has been made by the Parole Board, but of course people will be concerned by it and agree with what he has said. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and the concern in the House about that decision.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
May we have a debate on metal theft? While instances of metal theft have reduced significantly since the introduction of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013, recent months have unfortunately seen increases in metal theft from churches in particular parts of the country. We need to consider what support we give to the police following the disbanding of the national metal theft taskforce.
Mr Hague
As my right hon. Friend knows, the Government have invested more than £6 million in the national metal theft taskforce since it was formed in January 2012. That has led to an obvious improvement, and the Church of England has reported a large and welcome reduction in overall metal theft since 2012, although I am concerned to hear my right hon. Friend say that it is going up again. We agreed to provide funding for the taskforce to cover the first part of the new legislation and ensure that individual police forces had the time to implement proposals to tackle this crime effectively, as it is predominantly up to them to do so.
Business of the House
Tony Baldry Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
We are proceeding with legislation that is urgent. For that reason, some of the normal processes are being telescoped together. The short answer to the first request is yes, I will certainly ensure that it is possible for amendments to be tabled before Second Reading so that they may be considered in Committee and on Report. However, manuscript amendments are a matter for the Chair.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
May we have a debate next week on the courtesies to be shown to Members of Parliament by the machinery of government better to enable us to do our jobs properly on behalf of our constituents? Is there any possible reason why the leader of the district council in my constituency, the chief executive and I have been banned by Defence Ministers from meeting Neil Firth, who leads a defence and storage centre in Bicester? That is a significant local employer and there are a number of relevant and immediate local issues about job security and planning.
Mr Lansley
May I take the opportunity to wish my right hon. Friend a happy birthday? I am sorry to report that due to an administrative error he was sent an incomplete and inadequate response to his letter to the Minister responsible for defence equipment, support and technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne). That did not follow the proper process, and I assure my right hon. Friend that the Minister will write to him with a comprehensive response. The Minister has offered briefings to all interested Members on the competitive process, and indicated that he is willing to meet the delegation from Cherwell district council to hear its concerns.
Business of the House
Tony Baldry Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman is getting a bit confused. The vetting process is a security vetting process, which is quite distinct from the choice that the Prime Minister rightly makes about whom he employs as his advisers, including in special adviser positions. Those are not the same process and should not be regarded as such. However, as the Prime Minister explained yesterday and as is reflected in the evidence to Leveson, a process of inquiry was of course undertaken when Andy Coulson was first appointed director of communications to the Conservative party. At that time and subsequently, questions were asked and assurances were received, which unfortunately led to—as we completely understand—the Prime Minister giving Mr Coulson a second chance, but it proved to be misplaced.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
In addition to the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday, can we at some point have a debate on Europe that would enable those of us who are inherently pro-European to make the point to our colleagues in Europe that, if members of the Council of Ministers are unable to make provision for and find a position for countries such as the UK that do not wish to have the euro and are never going to be part of the eurozone—if we cannot be found an honoured place in Europe, and are unable to protect the inherent national interests of the City of London—inevitably, they are starting to push this country nearer and nearer to the exit door?
Mr Lansley
We often have debates on this issue. My right hon. Friend is right, both in relation to the statement next week and subsequent debates, that it will be immensely important for us to set out clearly that we must have a reformed relationship with the European Union, one where we can be clear that this country’s interests can be protected. As one who also supports our membership of the European Union, I would say that our national interests have to be protected—the Prime Minister and this coalition Government have done that on issues such as banking union, the EU budget and the fiscal pact, where the Prime Minister exercised our veto. However, we can also promote our interests through membership of the European Union. That is equally part of this debate, and we can promote those interests by completing the single market, promoting competition, deregulation in Europe and ensuring that the EU budget is used effectively to support growth across the EU.
Business of the House
Tony Baldry Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will recall the Foreign Secretary’s statement to the House following the Cabinet Secretary’s report. I saw the report and the papers associated with it, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman did. The Foreign Secretary made clear that the report constituted a comprehensive and conclusive response to the issues that had been raised, and I do not currently expect any further statement to be made.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Next Monday, the House will debate the Report stage and Third Reading of the Deregulation Bill. My right hon. Friend will have noted that our hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) have tabled a number of new clauses which, if passed, would completely deregulate Sunday trading. I must tell my right hon. Friend that any such move by the House would be seen by the Church of England—and, I am sure, by many other faith groups—as an act of bad faith on the part of Parliament. The present Sunday trading arrangements arose from a series of compromises that were agreed in the mid-1990s to strike a balance between keeping Sunday special and enabling more stores and shops to open on Sundays. I should welcome my right hon. Friend’s reassurance that if you, Mr Speaker, select any of the new clauses for debate, they will be resisted by the Government.
Mr Lansley
I am happy to say that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House would respond on behalf of the Government if the new clauses were to be debated. I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the Government believe that the current position constitutes a reasonable balance between some people’s wish for more opportunities to shop in large stores on Sundays and the desire of others for further restrictions, and that we are therefore not minded to legislate for further liberalisation.
Business of the House
Tony Baldry Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
It was necessary for us to move from the previous system of the disability living allowance to the personal independence payment, which is a much better system. In the past, people sometimes stayed on allowances for years without any assessment. It is important to have a proper assessment. As we make progress—we are doing so steadily—we need to make sure not only that we do it properly, but that we get to the point where decisions can be made quickly.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Could the Leader of the House or the Backbench Business Committee give the House an opportunity to hold a general debate on the concept of recall, so that the House collectively can work out what we are seeking to achieve? Some are arguing that oversight of the behaviour of Members of Parliament should be performed entirely externally, but any external body would, by definition, have to be statutory, and any statutory body would be subject to judicial oversight, which would mean the intervention of the courts and the potential for judicial review and applications in due course to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. It could, therefore, take a considerably long time for an MP who was under a cloud to go through that judicial process before their constituents had any opportunity to recall him or her.
Mr Lansley
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. As I have said in that past, I do not think we can contemplate a body other than the House itself reaching right into this Chamber to determine the circumstances in which a Member could continue their membership of this House. I think it is the House itself that should have such regulatory responsibility, not least for reasons of privilege.
As far as a debate is concerned, the recall Bill will give exactly such an opportunity. It is also important that we hear from the Standards Committee, which is conducting a review of how to further strengthen this House’s standards process.
Business of the House
Tony Baldry Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Now that we have five-year, fixed-term Parliaments, we are obviously in the longest general election campaign ever, and perhaps the business of the House should be changed to reflect that. Clearly the Leader of the Opposition is not going to ask the Prime Minister any questions on jobs, growth or the reduction in the deficit, so can we change Prime Minister’s questions so that the Leader of the Opposition can ask the Prime Minister three questions and then the Prime Minister can ask the Leader of the Opposition three questions? That way, we might have a proper examination of the fact that we have created 1.5 million new jobs, growth was up by 3% last year and the deficit has been halved.
Mr Lansley
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion, but I fear that it is not one we will take up. When the Leader of the Opposition asks his six questions, often what he leaves out speaks volumes, and I think that will inform the public as he continues to be bereft of anything to say on Labour’s plans for the economy.