UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Andrea Leadsom – 2022 Speech on Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules

    Andrea Leadsom – 2022 Speech on Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules

    The speech made by Andrea Leadsom, the Conservative MP for South Northamptonshire, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    I am really pleased that this debate has returned to the House. I refer to my submission to the Committee on Standards’ review of the code of conduct in February 2022; I had asked if I could give oral evidence to the Committee, but sadly that did not happen. I will refer to some of the points that I made, because I think they are important and I do not think that anyone else has mentioned them yet.

    In short, we need a review far broader than the one before us tonight of how the standards processes work in Parliament. All our constituents want to be able to hold us all to account. Most importantly, we want to hold ourselves to account. Members across all parties have said that almost all of us are doing our best at all times, working with honour and integrity and doing the best job we can, yet somehow the drip, drip, drip of bad behaviour is destroying the reputation of this place on a constant and ongoing basis. The measures before the House this evening, which with one notable exception are frankly trivial, are just not going to change that.

    As colleagues will know, I was closely involved in a cross-party attempt to create an Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. There are no other colleagues present who were closely involved, but all seven political parties in this place were represented. It was intended to create a change in the culture. What we always see when we come to this place is people pointing fingers—“The Government have done this, the Standards Committee has done that, the Opposition have done this”—and all we do is make it worse.

    The ICGS was designed to change the culture by doing things like proper induction for new members of staff, so that people know what to expect; proper exit interviews, so that when a Member has a group of staffers leave every three months, something can be done about it; and proper training programmes for staff and Members. Sometimes people laugh and say, “I don’t need to do unconscious bias training.” Well, my challenge to them is: “Okay, define it, then. If you don’t need to do that training, you define it. Show me how good you are at that.”

    The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme was set up to tackle those issues, but what we have now is a scheme that has sucked in every single complaint—“So-and-so won’t let me go for lunch on time,” or, “My holiday was cancelled.” Those frankly more trivial workplace grievances, which have nothing to do with the serious challenges, overload the system, so that when there is a serious complaint of serious bullying, sexual harassment or even worse, there is not time for it. The system is too slow. It delivers neither the confidentiality that it was supposed to deliver nor the speed of justice.

    I am afraid that, in coming up with this review, the Committee on Standards is looking thoroughly only at non-ICGS complaints, although it has certainly indicated its interest in the ICGS. Since 2018, the ICGS, which is independent—the clue’s in the title—and non-ICGS complaints, which are presided over by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, have got sucked into one amorphous blob. It has become a punishment routine that embarrasses us all, drags us all down and is destroying our reputation.

    Andy Carter

    May I clarify a point that my right hon. Friend has just made? I think she said that the Standards Committee had not looked at the independent complaints system. That is because, as she probably knows, the Standards Committee has no remit to look at it.

    Dame Andrea Leadsom

    As a matter of fact, the Standards Committee can look at whatever it wants. It was not established to look at the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. In a sense, however, my hon. Friend has made my point for me: the fact that the Standards Committee is looking at how we can improve the conduct and the reputation of Parliament without looking at the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme is a nonsense, and that is my thesis this evening. We need a much broader review.

    I am sorry to say this, because I am extremely fond of the Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers, but the Committee concluded that the behaviour of the Speakers and the Deputy Speaker was untouchable. The fact that behaviour in the Chamber is a matter for the Chair and should be above investigation by the Standards Committee is extraordinary. In very recent history, someone in the Chair was the person who wound up the Chamber the most, making people miserable and bringing the whole House into disrepute, yet for some reason the Committee will not consider the behaviour of those in the Chair. Nor will it consider what is going badly or well in respect of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) wants to intervene, he is welcome to do so.

    Now, under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has some sort of authority over that. It was intended that the investigation would be carried out independently and confidentially, but we are finding that investigations are now being presided over by the commissioner, who is requiring Members to stand up in the Chamber and apologise. That is outside the remit of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. Some may say, “Fine: if you have been rude to someone, you should stand here and apologise.” My response would be: “You try saying that to someone who works at John Lewis or McDonald’s. Are you seriously going to make them apologise to the entire firm, so that that will be on the record forever?”

    There are serious issues involving the mental health of MPs and the way in which we behave in this place—the way in which we protect colleagues from the problems that occur and bring us all down. So many people say to me that they are sick and tired of the fact that we are all tarred with the same brush. It is very easy for people to be tribal and say, “It’s you”, “No it’s not, it’s you”, but actually it is all of us. We are all held in incredibly low esteem, and it is because we have not sorted this out.

    While I am on the subject of big subjects, let me say that in my opinion—this is open to discussion and challenge; does anyone want to intervene?—it is all about the House of Commons Commission. Talk about a totally opaque organisation! It is chaired by the Speaker, it has appointments, and it is simply extraordinary. It is not accountable, and it makes financial decisions with very little transparency. Ultimately, all the authority in this place to establish Committees, to appoint Committees and so on, comes from the House of Commons Commission. In my opinion, we should have a fundamental review of that and then take it from there. The Standards Committee should look again at the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme and make sure it is doing what it was set up to do.

    Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)

    My right hon. Friend is making some very good and important points, and I hope that those who are listening to the debate may come up with a mechanism whereby we can review some of these issues. We are always told that they are issues for the House to decide, but what is never obvious to me is the process we can undertake to effect the discussions to which my right hon. Friend is referring.

    Dame Andrea Leadsom

    That—I say this slightly tongue in cheek—was the point of the amendment that was tabled last year, but nevertheless that did not happen during the debate on standards that took place then. It seems to me that we need something like the Straw Committee, which, back in the day, reviewed the way in which the processes of the House worked much more fundamentally than this review.

    The one development that I genuinely think has been brilliant is the new appeals process. It was essential and has been a long time coming, and I hope it will get the balance right between just punishing MPs and trying to change the culture in this place and give people fairness.

  • Deidre Brock – 2022 Speech on Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules

    Deidre Brock – 2022 Speech on Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules

    The speech made by Deidre Brock, the SNP MP for Edinburgh North and Leith, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    I will make a brief contribution. It has been very interesting to listen to everything that has been said so far and I look forward to hearing the take of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on all of this.

    The Scottish National party welcomes any proposals that ensure that standards in this Parliament are strengthened and that MPs fully represent their constituents, uninhibited by external vested interests. Lobbying is an important part of the democratic process, but only when it is carried out ethically and transparently. As we live in a representative democracy, the responsibility of an MP, first and foremost, is to represent their constituents who voted to elect them to Parliament. Being a Member of Parliament is a full-time role—many of us realise that it is more than a full-time role—and must fundamentally be treated as such. Elected officials should not abuse their power as an MP to earn significant incomes in a second job. The increased transparency of MPs and their interests, financial records, and activities carried out behind closed doors merits and deserves public attention.

    We therefore very much welcome the ban on providing paid parliamentary advice, consultancy or strategy services. Second jobs must be limited and regulated, although of course a formal contract enabling MPs to work in public service as doctors or nurses, or in the legal profession is a reasonable proposal.

    We are also completely committed to the reform of practices that enable MPs to abuse in any way their positions of power for private gain at the expense of their constituents. It is wrong that influence can be bought in our politics, and we have to make every effort as responsible MPs to stamp that out.

    There has been a rise in the reporting of abuses of the system in recent years. That has highlighted its various loopholes and shaken our constituents’ faith in their MPs. It is good to see at least some of those being closed down through the Government’s acceptance of most of the Standards Committee’s recommendations. I pay tribute to the work of the Committee and its hard-working Chair, the hon. Member for Rhondda, and I commend its excellent inquiries and reports.

    We welcome the addition to the code of conduct of a new rule prohibiting a Member from subjecting anyone to unreasonable and excessive personal attack. However, I, too, am disappointed that although the Committee recommended a set of descriptors based on the Nolan principles of conduct in public life—which other public bodies have adopted and which form the basis of the Scottish ministerial code—the Government replaced them with a much more generic version, and I think “generic” is being a little kind.

    I therefore support the cross-party amendment (a) from the hon. Member, which backs the Committee’s position on that. I again express real disappointment that the Government will not accept those descriptors for Members of Parliament. They are principles that none should object to if they want to stand for public service. As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, they are designed to help Members, so why would we not welcome them?

    Improving the transparency and searchability of the House of Commons Register of Members’ Financial Interests is essential. The public deserve to know what is in it. We therefore also support amendment (b), which would end the ministerial exemption that has been in place since 2015.

    Many people listening to this debate may not realise that MPs are required to declare any financial interests, including travel, gifts and hospitality worth more than £300 within 28 days. I just cannot see why Ministers should not have to register benefits received in their ministerial capacity in the same way. I listened carefully to the Leader of the House, but I just do not understand the justification. Such benefits are supposed to be published in the Government’s transparency returns, but those returns do not include details and appear only sporadically.

    The alternative proposals that the Leader of the House has outlined are certainly a welcome shift from the Government; I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Rhondda give his views on them. He said that he thinks that some Government Members agree with his Committee’s recommendations as they stand and may support the amendment. I hope they do. It is obviously for Members to decide on these matters, as the Leader of the House says, but personally I think the time for delay is over. I certainly hope that Members across the House will support these amendments.

  • Bernard Jenkin – 2022 Speech on Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules

    Bernard Jenkin – 2022 Speech on Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules

    The speech made by Bernard Jenkin, the Conservative MP for Harwich and North Essex, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    The former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), might want to speak before me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that is at your discretion. Thank you very much for calling me to speak.

    It is important that the House understands that the Committee on Standards recognises what a huge amount of anxiety and tension the regulation of standards in the House of Commons can cause. The vast majority of Members strive—I was going to say “manfully”, but womanfully as well—to uphold the seven principles of public life and our standards, and to observe the rules. When I first joined the Committee, I was struck by how different the conversation is within the Committee from the conversation outside. I have argued forcefully that we need a much more intensive engagement and understanding between the Committee and Members so that the conversations in the Tea Room about what our code of conduct means are supportive and constructive, rather than fearful and about “How do I just stay out of trouble?” I am afraid that quite a lot of the conversation is about that.

    The shadow Leader of the House would acknowledge that something that came out of last year’s debacle was the appeals process. The main contention at the time was that there was not a sufficient appeals process. There was a form of appeal, but when we had it reviewed by a retired judge, Sir Ernest Ryder, who looked at our processes and their compliance with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, it was found that our system could be made substantially better by introducing a completely separate appeal process. Had that appeal process existed last year, I do not think the debacle would have happened.

    Michael Fabricant

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Sir Bernard Jenkin

    I will, but I do not want to detain the House for long.

    Michael Fabricant

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I totally agree with what he says. It was the appeals process that many of us objected to and, additionally, the fact that the commissioner gave her view on that case before the inquiry had begun. As it happened, I agreed with her view, but it is not for a judge to state it beforehand. That was, I think, the objection of most of us.

    Sir Bernard Jenkin

    My hon. Friend touches on a key change, which is that in the serious cases that come to the Committee on Standards, the commissioner will now present her findings, but will not present a conclusion. It will be for the Committee to adjudicate on the conclusion, and then for the subject of the inquiry to appeal that conclusion on various grounds to an Independent Expert Panel. That is a significant improvement, and it should significantly reduce the anxiety that Members felt about the system before.

    There are only two other points I wish to make about the areas of contention. First, I argued very strongly for the changes to the descriptors of the seven principles of public life, because the bald descriptors of the seven principles on the Committee on Standards in Public Life website are difficult to translate into what we actually do as MPs. For example, selflessness—how do you become an MP if you are completely selfless? You have to advance your own interests. How do you have influence as an MP, unless you advance your own interests and you advance your publicity? Navigating selflessness as a Member of Parliament is a complicated business, and to anybody who says that it is easy to apply the seven principles of public life to all our activities, I say no. We are navigating a difficult landscape where we are constantly beset by conflicting values that we have to reconcile, and the idea is that these revised descriptors will help inform the conversation.

    The idea that these descriptors will have a chilling effect on the free speech of Members is a nonsense, because the descriptors themselves have no force in the rules whatever. They simply are there for information and conversation and to help Members to think about how we apply the seven principles of public life. Indeed, any Member who has fallen foul of the rules who could argue in front of the commissioner, “Here are the seven principles of public life, and here are the descriptors, and I felt I was following these principles”, would certainly have a mitigation, in that they had thought about the principles they were seeking to uphold, but nevertheless had fallen foul of the rules. These descriptors are completely innocuous. They are designed to help Members, and I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government have decided to object to them. I do not understand the argument that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has presented.

    We did not argue long and hard over the question of the declaration of ministerial interests. We would not be having this conversation if we had the situation described by my right hon. Friend, with timely, publicly accessible and regular declarations of ministerial interests on a par with the declarations that Members—non-Ministers —have to make as a matter of course in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I wish that we were not in this situation.

    I have listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend has said, and I will listen further to the debate. I hope she is saying that this will be sorted out and that, in response to my earlier intervention, we will finish up with a member of the public being able to see on one register all the interests relating to that Member of Parliament, whether a Minister or not. I quite understand the anxiety about dual adjudication of the code and of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. We do not want to get into a situation where—I do not think this is accurate, by the way—there is anxiety that the Parliamentary Commissioner will somehow be adjudicating on matters that are strictly for the ministerial code.

    I will listen to this debate. I have added my name to the relevant amendment, but I may well conclude that if the Government need the time to sort this out, we should give them that time, and this would not be some dereliction or watering down of standards. I appreciate that the shadow Leader of the House has to make her points on behalf of the official Opposition, for perhaps not entirely selfless reasons. However, as long as we finish up with both sets of interests being declared within 30 days and the ability to have them all in one place on one website, so that any member of the public or journalist can see exactly what interests are being declared in the name of that Member, we would be in a much better place. I wish we could do that by agreement rather than by dividing the House, but I do not know that we can.

  • Thangam Debbonaire – 2022 Speech on Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules

    Thangam Debbonaire – 2022 Speech on Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules

    The speech made by Thangam Debbonaire, the Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, in the House on 12 December 2022.

    I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and his cross-party Committee for all the hard work that they put into their comprehensive and far-reaching inquiry into the operation of the code of conduct for MPs. They worked diligently, thoughtfully and cross-party with their external members. They came up with sound proposals, consulted carefully and revised their proposals further. It then fell to the Government to table the motion—I will come back to that. I also thank the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and her team for all their dedication to making sure that rules are understood and, when not adhered to, thoroughly and fairly investigated. I also thank them for their recent review.

    Since 1695, as my hon. Friend once told me, Parliament has had rules against lobbying and taking payments for conferring or attempting to confer benefits on an individual, business or organisation. Until 2015, those rules only ever got stronger, which is the right and only reasonable direction that the public would expect. When a respected Select Committee does its job—consults, revises and employs independent judicial expertise—and makes its recommendations, my view is that that should be respected fully by the Government. So it is bittersweet to be debating the Government’s eventual motion today. After months of many of us calling for the full set of recommendations to be implemented as recommended, the Government have tabled a motion, but in the process they have ditched crucial elements that would have strengthened parliamentary standards still further. I am dismayed but hardly surprised, because this is, unfortunately, a Government with form.

    Let us remember how, just over a year ago, the Tories took an approach to standards taken by no Government before them. The then MP Owen Paterson had been found absolutely bang to rights, having taken a large amount of money for a large amount of access to benefit the company who paid for him. Most importantly, the Commissioner for Standards and the Standards Committee had investigated the claims carefully, reviewed the evidence, considered every angle and concluded a sanction. That is the backdrop to the motion: a Government who, within the past 12 months and roughly three weeks, did that to their system of standards—and there was more to come.

    The Government, led by the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—I have notified him of my intention to mention him—along with many others in the Cabinet and on the Government Benches, tabled and supported a motion as recommended, but in name only. The then Leader of the House spoke for 40 minutes in support not of the motion in his name but of the amendment in the name of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom). In so doing, he simultaneously tabled a motion and undermined the standards system and the case in hand by trying to introduce a new process.

    Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)

    Does the hon. Member accept that the amendment tabled was designed to set up a Select Committee to look exactly at the problems that we are debating? That was its intention.

    Thangam Debbonaire

    I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. It may have been the amendment’s intention in the abstract, but, by introducing it during that process, the Government undermined that existing, living process. Their case when approaching matters of standards is affected even now by that decision to propose a motion and then basically speak in support of one undermining it in the middle of a live process.

    Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)

    I take the point that the hon. Lady makes, but will she not accept that the Opposition deliberately sought to conflate the two issues of Owen Paterson’s guilt and that of procedure? I voted against the procedure; I was not voting on whether Owen Paterson was guilty or not.

    Thangam Debbonaire

    I cannot answer for the hon. Gentleman’s decision-making process, but I note considerable dissent in various parts of the House.

    Concluding that an existing structure and process had delivered an undesirable outcome, the Government seem to have believed that the structure and the outcome must be at fault, not the person involved, and decided to change the process when it was nearly complete to try to get a different outcome. I am afraid that that is the backdrop. The resulting vote caused chaos.

    Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)

    My recollection of that vote is slightly different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), as the hon. Lady may realise. What the Government are doing today is incredibly well intentioned and I would ask her to tone down the political tone, because we are all going to make our own decisions on the motion. The Leader of the House is trying to find a way forward, with the complications she has spoken about with regard to Whitehall and the principles of public life. I had some real concerns with what the Committee was putting forward and I will be voting with the Government tonight, despite the fact that I voted against them in that vote back in 2021.

    Thangam Debbonaire

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do support the motion—I will vote for the motion, should there be a Division. I will also vote for the amendments tabled by the Committee, and I will come on to the reasons why shortly. I just want to make sure we are clear about the backdrop. A Government did ask their MPs to support the indefensible and to vote for what appeared to be nonsense.

    The farce, unfortunately, continued the very next day. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset undermined himself still further by reversing the impact of the amendment, which had passed thanks to his Government’s own urging. I will not go over that in detail, but it is worth noting that it created a mess in the middle of the ongoing process. It meant that an MP then resigned rather than working with the system of standards, as the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire said, with the good intention of attempting to strengthen and improve the system.

    By this point, the Committee on Standards had already begun its work and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had announced her review of the code of conduct to complement the Committee’s activities. I am glad the Government have brought forward some of the Committee’s recommendations. It is already Labour policy that MPs should not be paid parliamentary lobbyists or consultants on how to get better access to Parliament and Government. Where MPs do have an outside job, it is right that strict protocols are followed, so I welcome the measure that will require them to have a written contract making it explicit that their duties cannot include lobbying Ministers. I am glad that has Government support. A Labour Government would go further and ban second jobs altogether, with limited exceptions.

    I note the commendable work of the right hon. Sir Ernest Ryder, who conducted the independent review into the system. The Committee made good use of his extensive experience and reflections on the very important issues of fairness, natural justice and the right to appeal. Unfortunately, some Members, in their attempts to defend their friend—an urge I completely understand; to defend one’s friends is a good quality—attacked the system on the grounds of fairness, natural justice and the right to appeal. They were exposed further on when Sir Ernest Ryder concluded that the present inquisitorial procedure for standards inquiries is fair and complies with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, or the right to a fair trial. He made further recommendations, including introducing a more formal appeal stage to the process, while noting that the existing standards process contained such a right, but that it was not clearly identified. I welcome both his and the Committee’s recommendations.

    However, the Government have ditched some key reforms. I note what the Leader of the House says, and I do not doubt that her intentions are honourable. I am glad to hear her say that more things are coming. I think she will recognise, however, that I am growing rather weary of hearing the word “soon”. That does not just come from her—she is not the only one. In fact, I do not think she did say “soon” this evening. But if it is not soon, then when? The Government have had the recommendations for some months. Given the backdrop I have outlined, on what basis does the Leader of the House think there is a moral basis for picking and choosing which of the standards they will accept and which ones to ditch? They appear to be ignoring that backdrop.

    The first specific issue I want to mention is the register of ministerial interests and the measures, which have been raised briefly already, requiring Ministers to register gifts and hospitality in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The history is fascinating. A 1993 report from the Select Committee on Members’ Interests stated that Ministers were required to register benefits they received in just the same way as other Members, even if it was in a ministerial capacity. Subsequently, the 1997 ministerial code provided that Ministers should register hospitality in their capacity as a Minister in the House if it was

    “on a scale or from a source which might reasonably be thought likely to influence Ministerial action”.

    The 2007 ministerial code went even further, providing that Ministers should register hospitality with both the permanent secretary in their Department and the House.

    Only in 2010 did the ministerial code completely separate the registering of ministerial and Member interests. It is worth noting that there was a change of Government that year, and it feels to me as though the subsequent amendment in 2015, with the then Government introducing the provision that

    “Members are not required to register either Ministerial office or benefits received in their capacity as a Minister”

    was a step backwards. I would like us to have transparency, with Ministers registering all hospitality above a certain agreed level with the House so that there is parity with Members, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda will explain in more detail. However, I feel this is an opportunity for the Leader of the House just to reconsider. Will she do so? The Government have had months to respond to these proposals, and I am really disappointed to see them thus weakened.

    My second criticism is about the examples of the principles of public life. The right hon. Lady the Leader of the House referred to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, so she must know that the chair of the committee said in oral evidence to the Committee:

    “We strongly support the idea that although the seven principles remain central and important for standards issues right across the public realm, they need to be interpreted for particular institutions and organisations.”

    Are we not a particular institution or organisation? We are. He also pointed out that

    “the civil service code…takes the same sort of direction…but identifies specific priorities and principles that are relevant to the civil service”,

    so why not Parliament?

    Does the Leader of the House agree that MPs should not misuse our position to gain financial or other material benefit? If so, the Government should not be nervous of making the principles of public life specific to our profession, as the Committee has recommended. In particular, I wonder about the weakening of the example given by the Committee on leadership. What, I ask, have the Government got against the recommendation that Members

    “should actively promote and robustly support the principles, abide by the Parliamentary Behaviour Code”,

    and what have they got against the recommendation that we

    “should refrain from any action which would bring Parliament or its Members into disrepute”?

    Surely that is something the Government should support.

    The other part of the backdrop is the loss of two independent ethics advisers in a matter of months. I will not take up too much of the House’s time on this point, but I do want the right hon. Lady the Leader of the House to convey to the rest of the Government our dismay that, week after week, when I or my colleagues ask when we are going to get an ethics adviser, the answer is always “soon”. I am sure the right hon. Lady wants to give us something clearer than “soon” soon.

    Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)

    I asked the Minister in the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee what “soon” meant. There was an offer—given that the previous ethics adviser resigned shortly after giving evidence to our Committee—of a private session about the process, but the Minister said that there would not be time, as it would come very soon. If the offer still stands, we could work with the Government to try to expedite the process.

    Thangam Debbonaire

    I can only echo my hon. Friend’s call to the right hon. Lady to give us some more clarity on what “soon” actually means.

    The new Prime Minister’s reference to previous Governments was to show that he would bring in a new professionalism, and so on and so forth, but this is exactly the same cast: there has just been another round of ring-a-ring o’ roses, and one of them tumbled into the middle to become Prime Minister. In this brave new world, their dictionary proclaims that “soon” means “as far down the road as we can kick this without actually having to deal with it”. The word “soon” is an important one to define when it relates to such important constitutional matters, and to transparency, ethics and integrity. We know that ethics matter and standards matter, and they matter whether or not the demonstrator on Parliament Square is calling for them—in fact, all the more so—because I am afraid that this lot skipping ring-a-ring o’ roses around successively failing Prime Ministers has cast such a long shadow on ethics that the Parliament Square demonstrator thinks everyone here is just as bad and that none of us can be trusted. That should shame the Governments responsible for it, because Members are subject to rules and standards. There are systems: there is a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards who investigates fairly and there is a Standards Committee that goes on to do likewise. Those checks and processes are designed to hold us all to account and ensure appropriate consequences if we fail. The vast majority of Members register their interests properly.

    Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)

    I was not planning to intervene, but the hon. Lady struck a chord when she spoke about the watering down of standards and what people on the street—the public and voters—think. We are all tarred with the same brush when Members break the rules egregiously. The reality is that that makes our jobs more dangerous right now, and it makes it more dangerous to go into politics, which we want to be accessible to all. Does she agree?

    Thangam Debbonaire

    I completely agree, and that brings me back to the deletion of descriptors in “Seven Principles of Public Life”, and the Committee’s recommendation that Members

    “should refrain from any action which would bring Parliament or its Members into disrepute.”

    Watering down standards does exactly that, so I completely agree with the hon. Lady.

    The vast majority of Members from all parts of the House, as I have said, correct the record when mistakes are made, register their interests properly, do their job diligently, and work in the national interest and that of their constituents. Every time this shadow falls—every time a Government try to protect one of their own by meddling with the system—it falls, as the hon. Lady said, on us all. Worse still, it falls on the system that we have built up over centuries to protect the public from political corruption.

    I do not want to detain the House, but we have a Government whose use of the word “soon” is as casual as to be the equivalent of a parent answering a demanding child at the start of a car journey about the time of arrival, and who refer to whether or not they need an ethics adviser when clearly they do. When they do those things, it affects us all.

    In closing, I am saddened but not surprised that this has happened, and that there has been a mangling of what I regard as a very good set of recommendations. I support the motion—of course I do—and I encourage colleagues from all parts of the House to back the work of their colleagues from all parts of the House on the Standards Committee and do likewise. It should not be this way, so I also urge colleagues to back the amendments tabled by members of the Committee.

    The Leader of the House and her colleagues had an opportunity today to draw a line. Instead, by messing around with the recommendations, making us wait for months and omitting key parts, they have undermined the strength of the argument. I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will work to strengthen standards and make a commitment that we will not tolerate their weakening. We will only ever support their strengthening and the creating of new transparency. I urge all Members to vote for the motion and the amendments on the Order Paper.

  • Penny Mordaunt – 2022 Statement on Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules

    Penny Mordaunt – 2022 Statement on Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules

    The statement made by Penny Mordaunt, the Leader of the House of Commons, in the House on 12 December 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That—

    (1) this House takes note of:

    (a) the First Report from the Committee on Standards, on New Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules: promoting appropriate values, attitudes and behaviours in Parliament (HC 227), and approves the revised Code of Conduct for Members annexed to that Report, subject to the following amendment:

    In section C (Seven Principles of Public Life): leave out “; as set out below, they are supplemented by descriptors, which apply specifically to Members of Parliament” and the Principles and descriptors as set out in the Report and insert:

    “Selflessness

    Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.

    Integrity

    Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

    Objectivity

    Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

    Accountability

    Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.

    Openness

    Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.

    Honesty

    Holders of public office should be truthful.

    Leadership

    Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour and treat others with respect. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.”

    (b) the Third Report from the Committee on Standards on New Guide to the Rules: final proposals (HC 544), and approves the revised Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members annexed to that Report, subject to the following amendments:

    (i) In Introduction, paragraph 14, leave out, “Whilst Members are not required to register Ministerial office” and insert, “Members are not required to register either Ministerial office or benefits received in their capacity as a Minister”.

    (ii) In Chapter 1 (Registration of Members’ Financial Interests), paragraph 17, at end insert: “() Donations or other support received in a Member’s capacity as a Minister, which should be recorded, if necessary, within the relevant Government Department in accordance with the Ministerial Code.”

    with effect from 1 March 2023, except that paragraph 8 of Chapter 3 of the Guide to the Rules shall only have effect in respect of past financial interests or material benefits from six months after the date on which the revised code and guide come into effect.

    (2) previous Resolutions of this House in relation to the conduct of Members shall be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members.

    The House is being asked to consider a motion today which would take note of the first report from the Committee on Standards, “New Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules: promoting appropriate values, attitudes and behaviours in Parliament”, and approve the revised Code of Conduct for Members annexed to that report. The motion would also take note of the third report from the Committee on Standards, “New Guide to the Rules: final proposals”, and approve the revised Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members annexed to that report.

    This is House business, and Members will be asked to make up their own minds on these matters—I sense the panic already, but I hope Members, even if they do not contribute to the debate, will feel free to ask questions and fully apprise themselves of the issues at hand. As Members of Parliament we must uphold the highest standards in public life, acting with integrity and professionalism. I believe these reforms are an important step in that process, building on the progress this House made in October when we approved the introduction of a new formal appeals process.

    I am grateful to the Committee on Standards for its work reviewing the code of conduct for Members and the overall operation of the standards system in the House of Commons. I welcome the engagement that is happening in this area and the conversations I have had with the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant); I look forward to hearing from him and I expect he will wish to take Members through the details of his Committee’s work, so I will not steal his thunder.

    The Government have carefully considered his Committee’s recommendations and reports. The Committee has proposed around 20 substantive changes; at the time of the Government response, we had disagreement with five of those, but that has subsequently been reduced to disagreement with just two.

    We have already acted in one vital area. In October, the House of Commons unanimously agreed the introduction of an appeals process for standards cases. We have reflected upon and now accept the Committee’s recommendation on the “serious wrong” exemption, and the recommended introduction of a requirement for Members who undertake outside work to obtain a written contract or separate letter of undertaking that their duties will not include lobbying or the provision of paid parliamentary advice. The Committee has also moved on its position on initiation versus participation, and now agrees with the Government. I hope those changes will show that the Committee and the House are listening, and that we are seeking ways of finding cross-party consensus on addressing these issues.

    Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)

    I think the Leader of the House means that the Government now agree with the Committee, because the Committee certainly has not changed its position on initiating and participating. I think that that was the tenor of the letter that she sent me last week.

    Penny Mordaunt

    I understood that it was the other way around, but the important point is, I think, that we agree. My remarks will, for the benefit of Members, focus largely on the areas in which we disagree, because I think those are what people would like to hear about.

    The first area is in relation to the seven principles in public life. Amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Rhondda seeks to reinsert into the code customised descriptors of the seven principles in public life. The Government have chosen to leave out those recommendations from the Committee and maintain the status quo in relation to the seven principles. The Government believe that those principles and their descriptors should remain the basis of the MPs’ code of conduct, and that the principles, as set out in the code, should be updated to the version published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 2013. The strength of the principles lies, in part, in the fact that they are a long-standing and widely understood set of standards expected of all public office holders. Adjustments of the kind suggested to the descriptors would undermine that universality. It is therefore preferable to retain the descriptors put forward by the Committee on Standards in Public Life when the principles were last updated as a whole.

    The second area of disagreement is in relation to ministerial declarations. The hon. Gentleman has claimed that there is an exception for Ministers. That is not the case. We have two systems of reporting interests. First, there are MPs’ interests, which are in accordance with the rules of this House and subject to oversight by the commissioner, the Committee on Standards and, ultimately, the House. Secondly, there are ministerial declarations, the basis of which is the ministerial code. The rules regulating Members’ interests and ministerial interests are distinct for a good reason, reflecting the underlying constitutional principle of the separation of powers and the operational differences between the role of an MP and that of a Minister. In addition, Members should not have to use the resources of their parliamentary offices, which should be focused on constituency business, to declare ministerial interests.

    The hon. Gentleman is asking in amendment (b) for dual reporting. He wants, by March, to make Ministers and envoys—trade envoys and others—report on a monthly basis information that will, at that time, be available only quarterly. If an MP is in breach, they may face two possibly concurrent investigations—one on the ministerial route and one by this House. Nor is it clear how that would be applied. Perhaps in his remarks, the hon. Gentleman could clarify for the House what the threshold for a Minister would be. If the hon. Gentleman wants parity between Ministers and MPs, is he asking for the threshold to be £300 or the current, more stringent threshold for Ministers of £140? Could he confirm whether that applies to shadow Ministers?

    Despite the problems that I have outlined, and the suggestion of the hon. Member for Rhondda, I agree that there needs to be more parity between MPs’ and ministerial reporting. I will set out the changes that the Government intend to make.

    Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)

    I am grateful for the way in which the Government have moved on many aspects of the report by the Committee on Standards, but I hope that the Leader of the House agrees that there is a problem with ministerial reporting. On many occasions, Departments fail to deliver their quarterly reports. I understand that the Government have some proposals and I am looking forward to hearing them, but will my right hon. Friend assure us, given that we will vote tonight, that the proposals will be delivered in a timely manner so that there is transparency about the way in which Ministers publicly report their receivables?

    Penny Mordaunt

    I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right: the current situation is unacceptable and the Committee has a valid point. I hope that I will suggest a way in which we can address that. However, it is important to say that if we do it in the way that the Committee suggests, we will end up in some difficulty, which I shall explain.

    First, we have extensively reviewed the existing guidance on transparency data. I have also audited each Department’s returns and sat down with the propriety and ethics team to look at ways in which we can improve the timeliness, quality and transparency of Ministers’ data and ease of access to it. The guidance, which we have reviewed, will be published online on GOV.UK for the first time. It commits Departments to publishing data within 90 days of the end of each quarterly reporting period. That is a modest, but necessary first step.

    Our goal will be first to ensure that all Departments are complying with their current obligations consistently, as reflected in the new guidance as soon as it comes into effect. We will then look to move to a system of reporting that provides the parity that the Committee on Standards is seeking on transparency and timeliness. That means monthly reporting.

    The Cabinet Office will also consider the alignment of ministerial returns with the House’s system and the frequency of publication, as part of the Government’s wider consideration of the Boardman and Committee on Standards in Public Life recommendations. It is reasonable to conclude that work by the start of the summer. My plan is therefore about three months’ adrift of that of the Committee on Standards.

    The Government are fully committed to transparency and to ensuring that all Ministers are held to account for maintaining high standards of behaviour and upholding the highest standards of propriety, as the public rightly expect, but we need to avoid creating a system that delivers further confusion and unintended consequences. That is why I have outlined the alternative proposal from the Government today. I have worked closely with colleagues across Government to set out how we will improve our system, and if the Committee on Standards remains concerned, I commit to revisiting the issue and engaging with ministerial colleagues to drive further improvements.

    Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)

    I am grateful for the way in which the Leader of the House has engaged with the matter. The whole House understands that there are what a “Yes Minister” script would describe as “administrative difficulties” with recording ministerial interests in a timely manner. However, surely the objective should be—we had a lot of evidence about this—that a member of the public can find in one place where Members have registrable interests, whether they are Ministers or not. Could we end up with a system, even if it were just a reporting mechanism that put stuff on the register without obligation, whereby the Register of Members’ Financial Interests showed all ministerial declared interests as well as all other Members’ interests in one place? That is the sort of accountability and transparency that the public are entitled to expect.

    Penny Mordaunt

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have had those discussions with the propriety and ethics team. This needs to be taken in steps, and we have to get Departments producing the right data in a consistent fashion for that to happen, but I have already had discussions with them about how we would design a system that puts all this in one place. I am very clear that the objectives the Standards Committee have are that this information is as accessible as the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and on a par with the timing of the register. In amendment (b) the hon. Member for Rhondda proposes a system of reporting immediately in March, when this comes into effect, that the Whitehall machine will currently not be able to deliver on.

    Chris Bryant

    Really?

    Penny Mordaunt

    It will not, but we can move to that system. At the moment Departments can produce this information only on a quarterly basis, and by March that will still be the case.

    Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)

    Imagine I am a layman: may I ask why? This does not seem beyond the wit of man; we all have to do it as Members of Parliament. There are considerably more staff in Whitehall than I have in my office. So I simply ask: really?

    Penny Mordaunt

    I am afraid so, and if the hon. Lady would like to know more I can bore her for hours on this. I have been through literally every single Department’s processes and returns, and some of the information takes a while to extract, such as that from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. That is not an acceptable situation and it needs to change. I have set out how we will do that and by when I think we will have been able to do so, but I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box today and say that by March we will have a system where Labour Members of Parliament and Members of Parliament on the Government side of the House, if they are envoys or Ministers, will be able to report on a monthly basis. We can move to that system, and I think for the sake of a few months we should do this properly and get Whitehall in the place it needs to be in.

    Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)

    I am concerned to hear that the Leader of the House is hiding behind officials, really. Members on the Opposition side of the House have a responsibility to make sure our records are correct; surely that applies to Members on the Government side of the House, whether they are a Minister or not?

    Penny Mordaunt

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point, because this does apply to those on his side of the House: among his colleagues on his Benches there will be trade envoys and other people undertaking work for the Government, and this will apply to them. I do not disagree that there should be parity between the two systems in access, transparency and timeliness; what I am saying is that the way in which the Committee has suggested this happen in amendment (b) will fail, and in a few months’ time—beyond March, when this system will come in—we will be in a position where we can succeed. That is what I am setting out for the House; it is for Members to decide, and they can vote whichever way they like. I am just apprising them of the facts. Anyone who wants to come and look at the audits I have done will regret it, but they are more than welcome.

    Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)

    Given that we have not had ministerial reporting since the end of May 2022 and the Leader of the House is now asking us to give her more time to bring a process into place, when can we expect to see up-to-date ministerial reporting?

    Penny Mordaunt

    As I have outlined in my speech, the new guidance has been put in place and will come into effect this spring. By the time the Committee wants the reforms we are voting on today to come into effect, Whitehall will be back up to what it is supposed to be doing now, and I think a few months after then, as we head into summer, we should have a system in place that will enable us to report at the same timeframes as MPs’ interests. Then we can potentially look at moving to having just one system rather than separate reporting by each ministerial Department. Those are the conversations I have had with the propriety and ethics team.

    The effectiveness of our standards system and the code of conduct rests on its commanding the confidence of both the public and Members on a cross-party basis. Approval of the proposed reforms and strengthening of the rules will represent an important step towards restoring and strengthening trust in our democratic institutions. We support the work being done to undertake and introduce measures to empower the standards system in Parliament, and I am committed to continuing conversations both within Government and with parliamentary colleagues to continue to bring forward any further improvements proposed by the Committee on a cross-party basis.

    I assure the House that my door is always open to discuss these matters with all Members. I hope that hon. Members will approve the reforms in the main motion, which I commend to the House. I thank the Committee for its work.

  • Lloyd Russell-Moyle – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    Lloyd Russell-Moyle – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    The speech made by Lloyd Russell-Moyle, the Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    The whole debate around voter ID and the safety of our voting system is slightly Trumpian. This is exactly what happened in the US: the far right tried to claim the system is not safe and that people cannot trust it, and then, when a clearly democratic result came around that it did not like, the far right whipped up its henchmen by saying, “This was an unfair vote.” We know that that is not the case in Britain, and we know it has never been the case in Britain.

    The Conservative party and this Government talking down the safety of our electoral system is exactly what these voter ID regulations are about. It my view, it is extremely dangerous. I asked numerous times in Committee on the Elections Act 2022 for a public assessment of why certain forms of voter ID are acceptable and others are not. I was particularly concerned about why student cards and young people’s cards will not be accepted. Not once have the Government published their rubric of why certain ID cards will be accepted and others will not.

    It is interesting that, in applying for temporary or permanent voter ID, one piece of evidence that a local authority can accept is that the applicant is on the roll of a local educational institution, but a polling station will not accept the card from that educational institution. That barrier makes no sense. The Government cannot say, on the one hand, that evidence from the educational institution is not acceptable to vote but, on the other hand, that it is perfectly acceptable as the sole piece of evidence to get a voter ID card from a local authority—no further evidence is required—other than the barrier of having to apply days in advance.

    Under the regulations, however, a voter can apply for a temporary ID card up to the day before an election, if the electoral returning officer believes they would not have been able to apply in advance. Why on earth could they not apply for it at the polling station by showing another form of ID, by allowing the polling clerk to make a determination? Surely it is only because the Government want to make sure that people who would not have ID cannot vote.

    Government data shows that about a third of people have only one piece of ID. My mother has only a passport. She has an old-fashioned paper driving licence, and she does not have any other form of ID. What would she do if her passport needed to be renewed and an election were called? Given the mess in the Home Office, she might be waiting months, if not longer, to get her passport. It is the same with a driving licence. A person who moves house might wait months to get their new driving licence, but they have rightly chopped up their old licence and sent it back. They might then have no voter ID. Despite the Government saying that only a single-figure percentage of the population do not have ID, anyone renewing an equivalent ID might have no form of voter ID during the renewal period.

    According to the Government’s data, 6% of people say they will be less likely to vote. What is 6% in each constituency? It is about 3,000 voters on average. About 40 Conservative constituencies have a majority of less than 4,000. That is 40 Conservative constituencies that might hold on a bit longer, meaning the Conservatives claw on to power despite the popular will.

    Let us consider travelcards, for example. Even the Government’s own research shows that 4% of young and middle-aged people believe their travelcard can be used as voter ID. If they turned up to the polling station with that ID, every single one of them would be refused a vote—that is not to mention the embarrassment of being turned away—and many of them, about a third, would not bother to return. Those numbers would change about 15 results at an election. That might make a difference in a tight election.

    The Minister said the professional world has mixed views about the implementation of voter ID, which I am afraid is just not true. The Minister is either mistaken or something far worse, and I would not believe that of this very good Minister. The reality is that every single professional body—the Local Government Association, the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators—says that the implementation of these regulations at this time is dangerous. They know it is dangerous because they have not been able to roll out even a card-based voter ID. It will be a piece of paper produced by the local authority. A piece of paper! Really? They will accept a piece of paper that an electoral services officer may have authorised, but they will not accept a travelcard that has to be applied for with a proper form of ID. It is ridiculous.

    The regulations will allow people in the community to attest that someone is who they say they are, but they will allow a person in the community to attest for only two people every election publication cycle. A doctor, a teacher or the one lawyer in a poor community might want to attest for many people, to say that they have known a person for a long time, but they will only be able to do so for two people. If those people cannot prove through other means who they are they are—there are other means, I grant that—they will not be able to go to their doctor, because the doctor will have used up their two for that year. Those are unnecessary burdens. We do not put that burden on applying for a passport or any other form of ID. Those arbitrary numbers are deliberately designed to attack the poorest who would not have access to others.

    The Government’s own data says that those who are trans or non-binary, who might be sick or have cancer, or who have experienced large amounts of weight loss and look significantly different, might face difficulties getting past the electoral services officer, but they have no plans to do anything about that apart from highlight to the polling stations that they should be cautious about that. How can they highlight to someone that they should be cautious that someone might not look like their ID, and at the same time say that they must refuse anyone who does not look like their ID? The Government’s own impact assessment does not make sense. The impact assessment on age says that they do not think that will be a significant difference, but the data itself says there will be a 4% to 6% drop in young people going to the polls. We know that those people are already less likely to vote.

    We can have an argument about whether we should have electoral ID or not. We can have an argument about whether it should be photo ID or the wider version. The Electoral Commission said that it preferred any form of ID, such as a credit card or other form of named evidence. We can have those arguments and we will continue to do so, but this instrument is being introduced with less than five months to go before nationwide polls, and no council administrator believes that they will be able to operate it safely. That is undermining our local councils. We know why the Government are trying to do that: they know that they will lose a load of their councils because people are fed up with the nasty Conservatives undermining their democracy and their councils. This should not pass.

  • Geraint Davies – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    Geraint Davies – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    The speech made by Geraint Davies, the Labour MP for Swansea West, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    The policy of requiring people to have ID to vote is simply a corruption of our democracy. It knowingly suppresses poorer communities, so the Tories can cling on to power during their economic disaster.

    We know that some 30% of people do not vote in general elections already; we know that, of the 243 million votes cast in the past 10 years, there are only a handful of examples of fraud; and we know that some 2% of the population do not have a driving licence, a passport or another form of ID, and that they will now be required to go and get that ID. Many of them will not get that ID and will therefore be automatically disenfranchised.

    We know that the poor will be disproportionately hit; we know the disabled will be hit; we know black and ethnic minorities will be hit; and we know the young will be hit. We also know these regulations allow older people, but not younger people, to use travel cards, such as Oyster cards, as voter ID. This policy is overtly discriminatory and is clearly designed to suppress votes and to load the dice at a future election.

    Aneurin Bevan, who famously started the health service, would be 125 years old if he were still alive today. In “In Place of Fear”, his political analysis was that British politics is a struggle between property and the interests of property, by which he meant the Conservatives, and poverty, by which he meant the mass of people represented by the Labour party. He took the view that, in difficult economic times, property would attack democracy itself.

    At a time when one in four people is now in food poverty, thanks to the incompetence and cynicism of the Conservative party, we have a situation in which the Conservatives are attacking democracy itself. They are attacking the right to peaceful protest, and they are now attacking the right to vote by requiring voter ID. This is a transparent attempt to corrupt democracy. It is totally wrong, and I hope a future Labour Government will repeal it immediately.

  • John McDonnell – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    John McDonnell – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    The speech made by John McDonnell, the Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    The debate so far has been superb and I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) on the expert way in which she completely took apart the Government’s arguments. I was 20 years in local government before I came here, and the last exercise in voter suppression was the poll tax. I was in local government at the time—I was chief executive of the Association of London Authorities, which represented both Conservative and Labour councils—and we explained to the then Government what the effect of introducing the poll tax legislation would be. It might well have been advertised as a fairer way of funding local government and collecting resources, but we argued that the Government needed to be careful because it could also possibly result in voter suppression. Naively, we did not think that that was an exercise being deliberately undertaken by the Government.

    Although the poll tax brought down Mrs Thatcher as Prime Minister, it ensured that a Tory Government were elected in 1992 because of what happened in many constituencies. Take my own constituency as an example, where 5,000 mainly working-class people dropped off the register. As a result, there were four recounts and I lost by 54 votes. I know every one of them and I visit them every so often, but there we are. That was an exercise that was done for one reason but actually had a sub-reason, which was voter suppression, and unfortunately I think that is what is happening today.

    My second point is that, because of my local government background, I know that there is a long tradition that we listen to our electoral administrators. They are the one group of people in an authority whose professionalism we do not contest, because they serve all political parties, and they do so independently and to the best of their abilities. Most of them have limited staff and limited resources, and they are not particularly well paid either. Survey after survey shows the majority have no confidence that they can deliver this change in time for the local elections. First, they do not have the staff in place because of cutbacks. Secondly, they do not have time to have their computer systems properly tested and operating effectively. Thirdly, they do not have time to launch campaigns informing people of what they need to do to register. Even if they launch a campaign and it is sufficiently successful, the prediction is that anything up to 16% of the electorate might apply but there will not be the staff to administer it.

    We should listen to the constitution unit’s report: this is an accident waiting to happen. Just in administrative terms, whatever the political motivations, this policy is not supportable and is not needed, as has been demonstrated by speech after speech. Unfortunately, not only is it a policy that will ensure some people do not get the right to vote and will cause conflict and contests at individual polling stations, but it is a policy that people will come to regret. It smacks of the dangerous dogs legislation, on which we cannot find anyone who supported it or promoted it.

    My only reason for speaking in this debate, apart from my local government experience, is so that when people examine this legislation in six, 12 or 18 months’ time, or in the years ahead, I will be on the record as speaking out against it. I think this is a disaster waiting to happen.

  • Stephen Parkinson – 2022 Speech to Mark 70 years of the Waverley Criteria (Lord Parkinson)

    Stephen Parkinson – 2022 Speech to Mark 70 years of the Waverley Criteria (Lord Parkinson)

    The speech made by Stephen Parkinson, Lord Parkinson, on 12 December 2022.

    Thank you for joining us this evening. The 70th anniversary of the Waverley Criteria – and the establishment of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest – might seem a rather rechercé reason to gather you all together (even for an Arts & Heritage Minister with a strong interest in history) but I was keen to mark this occasion for a number of reasons.

    The first is to celebrate the wide-reaching impact of the Committee’s work, and the extraordinary works of art and cultural objects it has saved for the nation.

    The second is to thank Sir Hayden Phillips, who steps down as Chairman after eight years – and to welcome his successor, Andrew Hochhauser.

    The third is to take the opportunity to reflect on the effectiveness of the criteria, and how we can make sure they remain relevant and effective for the next seventy years.

    As many of you will know, the Waverley Criteria arose from a 1952 report by John Anderson, 1st Viscount Waverley, who chaired a committee appointed to investigate a means of controlling the export of works of art from the UK.

    But their roots are in another anniversary we marked this year. When Thomas Gainsborough’s Blue Boy was sold to an American collector in 1922, the sale symbolised for some the end of England. Coming so soon after the end of the First World War, its loss seemed to echo the loss of a whole generation of young men. The ‘farewell’ exhibition held here in the National Gallery attracted 90,000 people, many of them moved to tears.

    In January – 100 years to the day since he left – the Blue Boy returned to London, and dazzled crowds here in the National Gallery once more.

    One of the reasons the loss of the Blue Boy captured such headlines in the 1920s was that no legal mechanism existed to prevent it. Export controls introduced as an emergency measure at the outbreak of the Second World War presented an opportunity – but they were not designed with the art market in mind, which is where Lord Waverley came in.

    His Committee considered the difficult issues involved, and concluded that export control should be limited to objects of high importance. It recommended the introduction of three criteria – connection to our history, aesthetic importance, and significance for further study – to help prevent the loss of objects distinguishable as “national treasures”, without placing undue hindrance on the free trade of cultural material.

    Over the last seven decades, those criteria have saved many hundreds of important works for the nation.

    And they have truly been enjoyed by everyone. The rolling slide presentation of outstanding works saved from export show how museum collections throughout the United Kingdom have been enriched thanks to the Waverley Criteria.

    It is an important reminder of the breadth and impact of the scheme. I am delighted that curators from institutions across the country who have benefited from it are here this evening.

    The Annual Report which has been published today details the most recent pieces which have been saved – including, appropriately enough for this Advent season, a beautiful Nativity by Baldassare Tommaso Peruzzi of the English School from around 1650.

    The quality of the advice, and depth of understanding, of the Committee and its expert advisors is impressive. Its annual reports are always a delightful read and a particular treat for a Minister.

    Of course, national treasures do not come cheap. Key funding organisations play a crucial role in supporting acquisitions saved as a result of the Waverley Criteria. I am delighted that representatives from the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the Art Fund are able to join us today. Thank you for the vital role you play.

    The current fundraising campaign, involving a number of funding bodies, to keep Sir Joshua Reynolds’s Portrait of Omai in the UK is a prime example of this. I commend the National Portrait Gallery for all it is doing to keep this spectacular work in this country for the public to enjoy and learn from – and I was thrilled to see that the National Portrait Gallery is almost halfway to raising the funds needed.

    But cases like this give rise to questions which this 70th anniversary is an appropriate moment to ask. Only around a third of the items placed under an export bar end up being bought and kept in the UK – a proportion which has stayed about the same over time and certainly over the last 10 years, although figures are somewhat down for 2021/22. With sharp inflation in the art market, and pressures on acquisition budgets, how can we ensure that precious works can still be afforded in the decades to come? While I, as the Minister presented with the Committee’s recommendations, am rightly not told who is selling or who might be buying, are we considering items’ connection to the history of other countries, or whether they are destined for public display rather than private collection?

    For seven decades, the Waverley Criteria have worked very well to preserve our cultural heritage and secure public access to national treasures. But the scheme has also been adapted to keep up with an evolving cultural landscape.

    The recent introduction of legally binding offers is a key example of how the process has been updated to safeguard museum funding and enable more items to find homes across the UK.

    So, as we mark this anniversary, I am keen to hear thoughts about how we can make sure the process works just as effectively over the next seventy years.

    I have asked Sir Hayden, as the outgoing Chairman, to give me his views – and I would like to hear more, from the people in this room and from across the sector. So I’m very grateful to the colleagues from DCMS, the Arts Council, and the National Gallery for organising this event tonight – and hope we can all mark the 70th anniversary of the Waverley Criteria by recommitting ourselves to ensure that they continue to save extraordinary works and share them with the widest public audience.

     

  • Stephen Parkinson – 2022 Speech on the Arts and Creative Industries Strategy (Lord Parkinson)

    Stephen Parkinson – 2022 Speech on the Arts and Creative Industries Strategy (Lord Parkinson)

    The speech made by Stephen Parkinson, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, on 8 December 2022.

    The terms of the Motion imply that protecting our world-leading creative industries and ensuring that more people have the opportunity to enjoy or take part in them through levelling up are somehow in opposition, and I must disagree. The point of levelling up is to make sure that everyone, in every part of the United Kingdom, can be part of the arts and creative industries’ success story. That is a story that many noble Lords have told eloquently again today. The noble Viscount’s Motion talks of “the case for” a strategy towards the arts and creative industries, implying that there is not one already. I am happy to reassure him that there is, and glad to have the opportunity to explain how it is shaping the approach taken by the Government and our partners, such as Arts Council England.

    Specifically, I point noble Lords to: the levelling-up White Paper, which was published in February; the work we are conducting with the Creative Industries Council to develop a sector Vision; and Arts Council England’s 10-year strategy, Let’s Create, which was developed in consultation with the public and people from across the arts and cultural sectors, and approved by government Ministers when it was published in 2020.

    For more than three-quarters of a century, the Arts Council has nurtured cultural life in this country and kept it separate from party politics. It is a cross-party legacy; it succeeds the Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts, which was set up in the dark days at the beginning of the Second World War by the national Government led by Neville Chamberlain. As noble Lords rightly reminded us, it was given its royal charter and new name in 1946, under Labour’s Attlee Government. It is a cross-party model of which we should be proud and which has been emulated across the world. Its decisions about which organisations to fund and by how much are taken at arm’s length from government Ministers, so if I do not go into detail on some of the specific organisations raised by noble Lords today, that is not to be slopey-shouldered but to defend that arm’s-length principle, which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and others extolled.

    As a number of noble Lords noted, Arts Council England plays a central role in supporting arts and culture in this country. It recently announced the outcome of its investment programme for 2023 to 2026, investing £446 million each year in arts and culture across England. It is doing that in a slightly different way to previous rounds, but in line with the trend the Arts Council itself has been pursuing for a number of years and over a number of rounds. It might be helpful to take a step back to provide a bit of context.

    Most cultural organisations in this country do not rely on funding from the Government or from the Arts Council. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, it is just one piece of the jigsaw, albeit a vital one. We saw the Culture Recovery Fund, the emergency support of more than £1.5 billion that the Government provided during the pandemic, helping more than 5,000 cultural organisations across England. Many of them had little relationship with the Government or the Arts Council until the pandemic hit—or indeed with the British Film Institute, Historic England or the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which helped us to distribute that emergency funding—but they were grateful for the help that came when they needed it. As a result of the work we did in the pandemic, we have a sort of Domesday Book of culture, showing the full range of organisations across England that weave the rich tapestry of cultural life in this country.

    More than 5,000 organisations received support through the Culture Recovery Fund. Only 1,700 applied for Arts Council funding in the next investment programme. While noble Lords are right to probe how that money is being spent, it is important to remember that it is only one way in which arts and culture are supported in this country. None the less, 1,700 represents a record number of applications for the Arts Council’s competitive funding and a record number of organisations, 990, will receive funding as a result—more organisations than ever before and in more parts of the country. Some 276 organisations are set to join the portfolio for the first time, with 215 of them outside London. This reflects our commitment to distribute funding and access to arts and culture more fairly. However, in London more organisations will be funded in the next round than the last—283 compared with 268.

    The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, talked about the size of the pie that is available in funding. I am pleased that my right honourable friends Oliver Dowden and Nadine Dorries secured an uplift for the Arts Council at the last spending review. There was an additional £43 million for the Arts Council’s grant in aid. We did not succumb to the macro temptation mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. Thanks to this larger pie and increases from the National Lottery, Arts Council England will be spending £30 million per year more through its core investment programme than in the previous NPO round.

    The question is how that larger pie should be sliced. In the last portfolio London benefited disproportionately, receiving around £21 per capita compared to an average of £6 per capita in the rest of the country. Even accounting for the important role that London plays as our capital and the wonderful organisations housed here, that is a stark discrepancy. Some 133 local authorities across England did not receive any funding—not a penny. A national portfolio should be based across the nation. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that it is not the case that there is no culture of note in places like Bolsover, Mansfield or Blackburn. These areas are all now represented in the new portfolio, which covers 217 local authorities compared to 180 last time.

    Working with the Arts Council, DCMS identified 109 levelling-up for culture places which received historically lower levels of funding, or which had lower levels of participation through metrics we set out transparently and published on the Arts Council’s website. Because of that decision, investments in those levelling-up for culture places were more than doubled.

    The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about the instruction to the Arts Council. The letter from the previous Secretary of State to the Arts Council was published and set out precisely what she asked it to do. It is important to stress that it was not giving instructions based on specific institutions or art forms, but it was asking the Arts Council to ensure that the taxpayer subsidy—which comes from taxpayers across the country—is spread more equitably across England. That is consistent with the arm’s-length principle we all cherish.

    As a result, towns like Mansfield will receive funding for the first time. Mansfield District Council will receive £1.7 million over three years to manage Mansfield Museum and Mansfield Palace Theatre. Unanima Theatre, which brings young people and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities together, will benefit from nearly £700,000 over three years—something I hope noble Lords welcome.

    We have seen an increase in the number of organisations led by people with disabilities in the new portfolio to 32. I had the pleasure of visiting one of them, DASH in Shropshire, three weeks ago. We have also seen a huge increase in the number of organisations led by people from black, Asian and ethnic-minority backgrounds, from 53 in the last portfolio to 1483 in the next. Arts, culture and creativity are all enriched when everybody is able to tell and share their stories. I congratulate the Arts Council on its work to enable that.

    At the same time, we recognise the special role played by our nation’s capital. It houses world-class institutions. People visit them from all over this country, and indeed from all over the world. We see that particularly at the moment as tourists flock to London to enjoy the cultural offering. Those institutions perform a levelling-up function in providing a national stage on which people can perform. For the fictional Billy Elliot, it was dancing with the Royal Ballet which persuaded his family of the value of dance as an artistic medium. That story is based on “Dancer”, a play by Geordie playwright Lee Hall, which premiered at the Live Theatre in Newcastle and was heavily influenced by the photographer Sirkka-Liisa Konttinen’s book Step by Step, about a dancing school in nearby North Shields, the town of my birth. The film “Billy Elliot” made over $100 million at the box office. It won three BAFTAs and was nominated for three Oscars, which is an illustration of the economic benefit and soft power of UK culture. We want to see more films and plays like it. That is why I am proud to see an additional £90,000 going to New Writing North to encourage new playwrights like Lee Hall and continued funding of £640,000 for the Live Theatre and its connected organisations. Like the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I am delighted by the cultural renaissance we are seeing on Tyneside.

    Noble Lords and people beyond this House may disagree with some of the individual funding decisions taken by the Arts Council. They were made entirely independently of the Government, so, as I said, I cannot comment in detail on individual outcomes. They were taken against well-established criteria and expectations, with careful consideration taken by employees and the regional and national councils of the Arts Council, who have a deep understanding of the sector. Some of them are appointed by the Government; some are appointed by other politicians such as the Mayor of London. Many others are simply drawn from people with expertise across the sector and in their regions.

    A number of noble Lords have mentioned the English National Opera. I saw earlier that its excellent chairman Dr Harry Brünjes and its excellent chief executive Stuart Murphy were here watching our debate. I think one of their colleagues has stayed behind; they are all very welcome. The English National Opera has done tremendous work. I pay tribute to it and all the staff for the work they have done, including the fantastic ENO Breathe programme, which has been helping people with respiratory problems as we emerge from the pandemic. The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, asked about transitional funding for the ENO. I confirm that Arts Council England has offered the ENO a package of support. We are keen that the Arts Council and ENO work together on the possibilities for the future of the organisation.

    My right honourable friend the Secretary of State encouraged the Arts Council to provide a larger and longer pot of transitional funding, which will be available to all organisations affected by the decisions in this portfolio. [N.B. this reference is to the Arts Council England Transition Programme for organisations previously in the National Portfolio, but who were unsuccessful in their application for the 2023-26 Investment Programme.] I reassure noble Lords that in the new investment programme, Arts Council England’s investment in opera, orchestras and other classical organisations will represent around 80% of all investment in music. I hope that will be music to the ears of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft.

    Through this programme, opera will continue to be well funded, remaining at around 40% of overall investment in music. Organisations such as English Touring Opera and the Birmingham Opera Company will receive increased funding. There are many new joiners such as Opera Up Close and Pegasus Opera Company based in Brixton, which I had the pleasure of visiting yesterday. The Royal Opera House will continue to be funded, receiving the largest amount of any organisation in the portfolio of more than £22 million—about the same as all of the east Midlands.

    London’s role as a global cultural centre is clearly reflected in the next investment programme, with 61 London organisations receiving funding for the first time, including the Jewish Museum and the Foundling Museum. Arts Council priority places in the capital such as Croydon and Brent will receive £18.8 million over the next three years. In Croydon alone investment will double, and the borough will see three organisations join the portfolio. We are levelling up within London as well as between London and the rest of the country.

    As noble Lords have noted, this funding round was extremely competitive. With a record number of applications, it was inevitable that some organisations would be disappointed. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, it was ever thus. There is no automatic entitlement for arts organisations to continue receiving public funding in perpetuity. We recognise that leaving the portfolio can be an anxious and challenging experience, particularly as we emerge from the pandemic and with the challenges of the winter we all face. But this can also lead to organisational innovation and development in the organisations that did not get as much as they were bidding for. As the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, said at the start, the nature of the arts is to be open to dynamic change, and I agree with him that this should be encouraged carefully, mindful of the need for balance.

    A number of noble Lords mentioned the Creative Industries Sector Vision that we are developing, which will set out our 2030 ambitions to drive growth and employment in our world-renowned creative industries as well as increase the positive impact that they can play in our lives. I recognise that the delays in publication have been frustrating, but we will publish it early in the new year—I hope that is better than “in due course”. At the heart of the sector vision is £50 million of investment from DCMS to drive growth across the country through the Create Growth programme, the UK Games Fund and the UK Global Screen Fund. UKRI has announced over £100 million of support for R&D and innovation in the creative industries, including the Creative Catalyst and CoSTAR programmes.

    In August last year, we announced our flexi-job apprenticeship offer, including a £7 million fund to support sectors with flexible employment patterns and project-based working, which is particularly the case in the creative industries. Five active flexi-job apprenticeship pilots are currently under way, with creative employers such as the BBC and the National Theatre. The ScreenSkills apprenticeship pilot, supported by DCMS, Netflix and Warner Media, also focuses on widening participation and diversifying the talent pipeline in the TV and film sectors. Both the Department for Education and DCMS continue to work closely with the creative sectors through the creative advisory group to explore further possibilities and flexibilities for apprenticeships, alongside other post-16 pathways, including T-levels, higher technical qualifications and skills boot camps. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has agreed to chair the expert panel to inform the new cultural education plan.

    The noble Lord, Lord Storey, spoke with passion about ensuring that everyone, whatever their background, has the opportunity to take part in arts and culture. You should not have to sofa-surf in London or know someone already in the business in order to pursue a career in the arts that can be rewarding in every sense of the word. As a former comprehensive schoolboy who grew up in Tyneside and rural Suffolk, I feel passionately about this and welcome the expertise that the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, will bring, along with her fellow panel members, to help us to deliver that. She is right to highlight the commission of the Local Government Association, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey—I am pleased to say that I will attend its launch later this afternoon.

    A number of noble Lords talked about the international reputation of UK arts and creativity. The cultural sector is a key asset that boosts perceptions of this country abroad, with both a financial and a reputational return on investment. Research shows that people who have been exposed to UK culture and education report more interest in doing business with the UK than those who have not—an average difference of 11 percentage points.

    The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, talked importantly about the two cultures, which have never been closer, and the importance of science and scientific researchers. He may have seen the new exhibition at the Science Museum, “Injecting Hope”, about the search for a Covid vaccine. This will move from London to tour China and India. Earlier this week, I was at the Grant Museum of Zoology at University College London, which benefited from the £4 million pot of funding from the DCMS/Wolfson Foundation.

    The noble Viscount and the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, mentioned the importance of touring. We have supported the sector to adapt to new arrangements with the European Union, and we worked extensively with it and directly with EU member states to clarify arrangements on the movement of people, goods and haulage. We have worked across Government and with the industry to develop guidance on landing pages on GOV.UK specifically for touring musicians and other creative professionals. We have worked to ensure that that is clear, accessible and available to people, and we continue to work with the sector to make sure that it is.

    I mentioned the Government’s commitment through the Culture Recovery Fund, but a number of noble Lords asked about freelancers. The Omicron strain hit about this time last year, and I am glad to say that we provided £1.5 million of emergency funding specifically for freelancers, matched by £1.35 million from the theatre sector, which was distributed through the Theatre Artists Fund, Help Musicians and the Artists Information Company. This helped in addition to the money provided to organisations to ensure that they were able to open their doors and employ freelancers when the pandemic abated.

    The last Budget increased tax reliefs for theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries until 2024. These additional tax reliefs are worth almost £250 million to the sector and are a fantastic boost to it to keep producing the content for which we are world famous. Taken together, along with the other pan-economy support measures that the Treasury provided, these interventions supported the cultural sector throughout the challenges of Covid. Furthermore, the £500 million Film and TV Restart Scheme helped us to ensure that our screen sector could continue to produce content safety, protecting over 100,000 jobs and more than £3 billion of production spending.

    We continue to be aware that arts and cultural organisations face new challenges because of the increase in energy prices. I recently hosted a series of round-table discussions with people from the performing arts, heritage and museum sectors to ensure that we maintain our focus on the ongoing impact of energy price increases and inflation as well as identifying opportunities to improve energy efficiencies. The Government continue to support all sectors in the economy this winter with the Energy Bill Relief Scheme, but I have heard first-hand how important this support has been to our cultural organisations. DCMS has worked closely to inform the Treasury-led review of the scheme, which will be published by the end of this year, and we have provided evidence on the nuanced challenges faced particularly by the cultural sector as part of this review.

    In the Autumn Statement last month, the Chancellor set out his plans to restore stability to the economy, protect high-quality public services and build long-term prosperity. He also announced a £13.6 billion package of support for payers of business rates in England, which will support people in the cultural sector too. Plans for the second round of the Levelling Up Fund were confirmed, with at least £1.7 billion to be allocated to infrastructure projects around the UK before the end of the year. One of the themes for that fund is supporting cultural and heritage assets, which will give another important boost to the sector.

    The noble Lord, Lord Leong, asked about text and data mining, and we recognise the concerns that the sector raised about this. My honourable friend Julia Lopez raised this with the IP Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who has agreed to engage further on the text and data mining exemption. We will consider all of the evidence before making a decision.

    The noble Lord, Lord Foster, asked about creative clusters programmes. Since the last spending review, UKRI has announced more than £100 million of support for the creative industries to support innovation. The decision to fund Creative Clusters is made by UKRI, but I am keen to work with it to look at the results of the programme and other interventions to see what has worked and ought to be replicated.

    So the Government recognise and appreciate that London is a leading cultural centre, with organisations that benefit not just the capital but the whole country and that are enjoyed the world over. But that is true of other towns and cities too: only last night, Veronica Ryan won the Turner Prize—I congratulate her—which was announced at Tate Liverpool. Next year, the eyes of the world will be on that city as it hosts the Eurovision Song Contest, inspiring people around the world about the power of music.

    Through the Arts Council’s next investment portfolio, by increasing investment outside London, it will help to generate culture and creative opportunities for more people in places that have been underserved for too long. In doing so, it will help to redress an historic imbalance in arts funding. I firmly believe that that work, alongside the investments and other programmes that I outlined, can ensure that our world-class arts and culture can continue to thrive into the future.this specific contribution

    I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and the Minister for summing up. I endorse the comments of many noble Lords who welcomed his return to the Front Bench with this portfolio. The richness and breadth of the contributions from the 20 or so speakers are a symbol of the richness and breadth of the creative industries and the arts and culture sector. I have certainly learned a great deal and been challenged to think in a new way about many things.

    I mentioned that there had been 20-odd speakers, but my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, probably represent the experience of about six people between them, whether as performers, producers or academics.

    The Minister picked me up on implying or suggesting that levelling up was in conflict with maintaining our world-leading position. I had meant to make it clearer in my opening remarks that, at least in the medium and long term, I think that they are not in conflict—but in what we are seeing in the clumsy and ill-planned implementation, at the very least, in the short term, there is that danger.

    I also wanted to make it clear that this is not about us metropolitan Londoners going out, educating and bringing culture to the north or any other part of the country. As has been mentioned, there are wonderful and long-established institutions all over the country. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about Sage Gateshead, which is one of the great cultural achievements of the past 25 years, and was very much the initiative of the local community. Indeed, it is two-way traffic; the wonderful Kings Place office building with its two concert halls was the result of a Newcastle property developer, Peter Millican.

    I welcome the Minister’s indication that the Secretary of State is pushing—if I understood him correctly—to make the transitional payments available widely to affected organisations and to make them larger and longer, although anything that is transitional rather than ongoing will clearly still be only some small consolation.

    The noble Lord, Lord Foster, was I think the first of several noble Lords to mention the absence of the creative industries from the five sectors prioritised in the Autumn Statement. I found that depressing and a bit ominous. This month’s Chancellor was the Secretary of State at the beginning of the coalition Government for what is now DCMS. His ruthless pruning of the departmental budget may have aided his ascent up the slippery pole of his political career, but it did nothing for the sector. That is when so much of the damage was done, whatever modest adjustments there have been to funding more recently.

    At the heart of many noble Lords’ concerns is the question of the arm’s-length nature of the Arts Council’s position, and whether it has been dented or breached. I have a different view from my noble friend Lady McIntosh, but I guess I am a bit defeatist, and the reality may be that the arm’s length is not being and will not be maintained, so it is better to acknowledge it by bringing more direct into the department.

    I will wind up with one last comment. My noble friend Lord Leong, my newest colleague, said that he sometimes wondered whether he had found himself in Hogwarts. This is my 40th or 41st year in the House, and the only difference is that I know that it is Hogwarts.