| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11 Feb 2009 : Column 461WH—continued
First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) said, this is the fourth debate on this subject. I congratulate him on securing it, and I hope to God that it will be the last one. The debates demonstrate the real importance that my hon. Friends and others attach to the issue. Secondly, I want to make a profound personal and departmental apology to my hon. Friends and to the victims of pleural plaques for not yet publishing the response to the consultation. I deeply regret that. It is very unfortunate, and all I can say is that, along with this debate and the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley,
West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) put to the Prime Minister today, the focus is very much on getting the response out quickly.
Let me speak briefly about the responses to the consultation. There was a large number—larger than we expected—including many from my hon. Friends, among others, and they are quite complex. The issue is complex, and the hon. Member for Cambridge highlighted some of the complexities. I say to my hon. Friend the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (John Battle) and others that the Government are not hiding behind the insurers. We are determined that we get to a resolution quickly.
John Battle: I did not say that the Government are hiding behind the insurers, but I am worried that the Department officials actually say, “We’re on the side of the insurers and not on the side of justice in this case.”
Bridget Prentice: I do not think that Department officials say that, but even if they did, they do not make the policy—elected Members do, and we certainly would not be going down that line.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone that I absolutely intend that something should happen well before the general election. I shall also keep in mind the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) has a number of private Member’s Bills in the offing and, if it is not to be the draft Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Bill, which I will mention in a moment, one of his Bills is also hanging in the air if there is a role for legislation.
I say to the hon. Member for Cambridge that the draft Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Bill is second in line to go under the new procedure in the House of Lords, so I cannot guarantee that it will be dealt with in this session of Parliament. However, it is up there near the top, so that is another example showing that we are considering ways of moving this forward. The scrutiny of Karen Gillon’s Bill in the Scottish Parliament highlighted some of the complexities involved. Although the Scottish Justice Committee welcomed the measures to enable people with pleural plaques to claim compensation, it is concerned about the Scottish Executive’s financial memorandum. In a sense, that confirms that our decision on going out to consultation was the right one.
Mr. David Hamilton: My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) said earlier that this would create a division, again, between Scotland and England—and Northern Ireland, for that matter. I agree that there are certain anomalies in the Bill as it stands and that it will be amended before it goes through. It is important to note that it receives all-party support—Tory, Liberal, Scottish National party—and was introduced by Labour. However, there is a second issue. After that Bill goes through, and the status quo stands, how will employers be dealt with in Scotland? Will they not be disadvantaged by heavier premiums and insurance than apply in England? That is another anomaly that would emerge. We need a UK solution to this issue.
Bridget Prentice:
I could not agree more with hon. Friend. We need a UK solution. In past debates, we have raised the matter of what would happen to someone
who worked in Scotland but lived in England, and vice versa. We have all rehearsed those arguments on many occasions.
As hon. Members have mentioned, the consultation considered a range of options. We received some 220 responses, some of which came from people who had been diagnosed with pleural plaques. I read helpful, informative responses from medical professionals, including Dr. Rudd and Dr. Moore-Gillon, who gave evidence to the House of Lords in the Rothwell case. Those responses, along with the review that we asked the chief medical officer and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to undertake, demonstrated that in a number of areas there was consensus on some key points. That is useful, important and positive.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), who said that the best way to do away with the compensation culture is to have better health and safety at work. He is right. Although to some extent I accept the logic of looking at things from a wider perspective, I say to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) that, given the time that people have waited on the pleural plaques issue, I would prefer on this occasion to see something done in respect of this matter, then we can consider things in a wider scope on another occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone has been rightly praised for the work that he did in respect of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008. In the first three months of the scheme, 225 payments have been made totalling more than £3 million. We expected the payments to be, on average, in the region of £10,000, but on average they are £18,000. Our target was to pay claims within six weeks but, in fact, the majority are now being cleared in less than a week. What my hon. Friend said on the subject is important and shows that if we put a scheme together that goes directly to the individuals we get a better, more efficient and faster scheme that does not just pay £14,000 to the lawyers.
David Howarth: How much money has been recovered directly from employers—from defendants—under the Act that the Minister mentioned? She has given the figure for the money out, but how much money has been brought in?
Bridget Prentice: Unfortunately, I do not have those figures, but if I can get hold of them I will certainly make them available to the relevant Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn), who has left to attend a Select Committee sitting, was right. The Newcastle Evening Chronicle has been running an effective campaign—I get more coverage in that newspaper than in my local papers—and, hopefully, one day, there will be something slightly more positive to mention than there is at the moment. It is important that those campaigns continue and that the pressure is kept on. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian
Stewart) made a passionate contribution to the debate. He is right: the victims are not just the people with the pleural plaques, but their families and the loved ones around them.
Rob Marris: Does my hon. Friend the Minister, as a Labour Member of Parliament in a Labour Government, accept the basic proposition that justice demands that the law, as interpreted by the House of Lords in its decision, be changed statutorily by the House of Commons for the whole of the United Kingdom?
Bridget Prentice: I think that I can probably agree with my hon. Friend on that subject. We need to find a way of ensuring that people get some recompense, because another unwelcome effect of the House of Lords judgment was that people diagnosed with pleural plaques were no longer able to establish the employer’s liability of negligence at an early stage. That potentially creates difficulties, especially if people eventually get mesothelioma, or another asbestos-related disease, as that delay inevitably affects the speed with which they can obtain compensation.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend the Minister has not said whether she agrees with the proposition that there should be an employers’ liability insurance bureau and a compulsory insurance register for employers who may later go out of business. Perhaps she could say whether she agrees with those propositions, which are in my Bill and have generally been welcomed in this Chamber.
Bridget Prentice: That would be a constructive way forward and it is something that we would want to look at. I would not want to go any further than that on this occasion. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] Perhaps in the next debate we can have that discussion.
Today, we heard the Prime Minister make a clear indication, in response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone, that something will be coming forth soon from the Government. I want to reassure my hon. Friends and, indeed, all hon. Members that we are firmly committed to helping people who have suffered as a result of exposure to asbestos.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Moffat) and others who mentioned our dear departed friend, John MacDougall, that the idea of a trust fund in his memory would be an appropriate way for us take this matter forward. I hope that the trust fund that the family is setting up will be successful. When my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North was thanking people at the beginning of the debate, it was a bit like the Oscars, but I hope that the award to him and to those he represents will be that we will treat people with pleural plaques and other asbestos-related diseases with the respect and support that they deserve.
Lobbying (Whitehall/Westminster)
3.59 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): Thank you, Mr. Williams for calling me, as my colleagues leave for the imminent vote. I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for granting this debate, and I shall put my cards on the table straight away.
I want a mandatory register of lobbyists, as do my friends on the Select Committee on Public Administration. We published a unanimous report, “Lobbying: Access and influence in Whitehall”, on 5 January, before the terrible revelations in The Sunday Times. The last time Parliament reported on lobbying was way back in 1991—a lifetime ago, before mobile phones, e-mail and the internet.
4 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.20 pm
Mr. Prentice: I am grateful that we are able to resume the debate, Mr. Williams. I will canter through my speech as quickly as I can.
Before we were interrupted, I was drawing attention to the Public Administration Committee report that was published on 5 January. It calls for a mandatory register of lobbyists. It was published before the dreadful revelations in The Sunday Times article, “Labour lords change laws for cash”. It is worrying that people out there think that Parliament is a den of thieves. Revelations and allegations of sleaze are a spreading stain that contaminates Members of Parliament and peers alike. Something must be done.
The House of Lords Committee for Privileges is looking at the allegations. However, what I have heard with my own ears—not mediated by the media—is appalling, such as the comment that rules are meant to be bent. The Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Royall, talked of the possibility of suspending or even expelling peers who are guilty of wrongdoing. She was right in saying that the revelations were “deeply shocking”. Sam Macrory of The House Magazine—our internal journal—said:
“Cash for questions is one thing; cash for changing the law scrapes a new low in the annals of political scandal.”
Why did the fake lobbyists target the Lords? In the same article, Sam Macrory quotes Professor Robert Hazell of the constitution unit at University college London:
“Since 1997 the government has suffered four legislative defeats in the House of Commons, and nearly 500 in the House of Lords”.
I know colleagues who have been lobbied by bona fide organisations such as housing associations to press an amendment in the House of Commons. They have been told by Ministers that hell will freeze over before the Government will accept the amendment. The same amendment goes to the other end of the Palace and is accepted in the House of Lords. That is where legislation is changed. Lobbyists understand that. Professor Hazell goes on to say that
“it is no surprise that lobbyists and interest groups focus on the Lords: the prospects for getting legislation changed there are so much greater.”
According to the Financial Times, more than 40 peers have given passes to people who work for lobbyists, PR firms and other organisations such as the National Farmers Union and the TUC. That list can be accessed at the website, FT.com/lobbyists.
My friends on the Public Administration Committee and I take the view that transparency is essential. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 has changed everything. It has changed the way in which we think about information and our rights to it. For Parliament and its procedures still to be shrouded in mystery is anomalous in this day and age. I think that we need a mandatory register, and so does Sir Christopher Kelly, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, who is at the apex of the ethical pyramid. Yesterday, he told the Public Administration Committee that he agrees that there should be a mandatory register of lobbyists.
The report has its critics. I think that it is good, but it has not received universal acclaim. Lord Bell said:
“It is an incompetent report which contributes nothing—either in its analysis or in its recommendations—to help people who are concerned that the Government comes under undue influence.”
At the other end of the spectrum, George Monbiot told The Guardian that our proposals were “timid and dated”. I do not know which planet George is on at the moment, but it is not planet Earth. Our proposals are radical and quite revolutionary.
The report recommended that there should be changes to the ministerial code. The independent adviser on ministerial interests, Sir Philip Mawer, cannot initiate inquiries into ministerial conduct and must wait for a direction from the Prime Minister. Sir Christopher Kelly told the Select Committee, and stated in his annual report, that it is a serious weakness that the independent adviser cannot initiate inquiries. Until that is possible, newspapers will continue to run stories about members of the Cabinet meeting Russian oligarchs. Such stories will not go away.
The Prime Minister is committed to constitutional reform, so I would like to see him change the ministerial code and consider a mandatory register of lobbyists. I was given some encouragement today when I raised the matter at Prime Minister’s Question Time. I get the sense—I am looking at the Minister as I say this—that we are pushing at an open door. The climate of opinion has changed. Lobbying is not always bad and can be very good. It is an essential part of our democracy. People want to influence decisions, and doing so can be malign or benign. My views are influenced all the time by people who lobby me. My views on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill changed after I read material from the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association and others. Lobbying can be positive, but those on both sides of the argument must have equal access. We are being lobbied on the third runway at Heathrow; we should hear the arguments against the third runway. We are lobbied on genetically modified foods. Is that a good thing? We should be lobbied on the alternative viewpoint. There should be a level playing field.
Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): What conclusion has my hon. Friend reached on the evidence that hon. Members, particularly ex-Ministers here and in the other place, seem to be acting for large sums of money as paid stooges to outside interests? Does he think that it should be one MP, one job?
Mr. Prentice: I thank my friend for that intervention. I believe that being a Member of Parliament is a full-time job. I shall return to that point later, because a large number of MPs, many of whom will retire from the House at the next election, have taken well remunerated posts. I do not mean £5,000 or £10,000, but £50,000 or £70,000—in one case as much as £110,000. Such sums completely dwarf the parliamentary salary.
What is the problem with lobbying? It is unregulated, it cannot be accounted for and it is largely out of sight. That is the view of the non-profit charity Spinwatch, which monitors public relations, spin and lobbying in society. It says—and I agree—that lobbying is secretive and that it leads no evidence trail. At the moment, insofar as there is regulation, it is conducted by the three main umbrella bodies. They have codes of practice, but sanctions are rarely employed. During the past decade, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations has formally reprimanded only two of its members; the Association of Professional Political Consultants last used its procedures in 1998—11 years ago; and the Public Relations Consultants Association has never received a formal complaint that required the involvement of its professional practices committee.
So there we go. It is not as if the industry is so squeaky clean that the absence of references to the Standards and Privileges Committees could tell us something. That is why the Public Administration Committee is calling for transparency and disclosure. Indeed, we go further: we want details of the person being lobbied and the minutes of meetings. Lobbying happens overseas. People here recoil in horror at the thought of senior civil servants’ diaries being open to the media, the press and hon. Members, but it happens overseas. The Committee visited Brussels last year or the year before, and in June last year, the European Commission introduced a voluntary register of lobbyists. Later this year, probably in June or July, the Commission will decide whether to go for a mandatory register. In the United States, President Obama is red hot on transparency and is a great backer of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. Of course, there have been scandals in the US; people who are fraudulent or corrupt are inventive and will exploit loopholes, which must be closed. That is how to deal with the problem.
Our sister democracy in Canada has regulated lobbying by statute for more than 20 years. Its system focuses on improper access to decision makers. It therefore knows the identity of the lobbyists, on whose behalf they are lobbying, the issues on which are lobbying, and the targets of the lobbying. That is happening in Canada, but why do we need it here? Power is concentrated in the United Kingdom. We all remember the Drapergate affair. In 1998, Derek Draper worked for Lord Mandelson, who is now Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. I believe that Derek Draper is now a psychotherapist. In 1998, he famously said that there were only 17 people who exercised real power in the new Labour Government, that he knew them all and that he could introduce lobbyists to them all. After that, the Government acted, and properly so. They brought in new guidance—“Guidance for Civil Servants: Contact with Lobbyists”—which said that they should not do anything that would place them under an obligation to the lobbyist. That was good guidance, but it has not been updated since 1998.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |