OPPOSITION TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (EMPLOYMENT DISQUALIFICATION) BILL
15th January 2002
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield):
I oppose the Bill. At the outset, I should make it clear that I have nothing to declare, in the sense that I would not fall within the ambit of the Bill because I do not have the sort of outside interest that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) has described. Incidentally, I hope that the hon. Gentleman contacted the Chairman of the Select Committee to whom he referred to say that he would be impugning his integrity.
I listened to the hon. Gentleman with growing incredulity. He mentioned hon. Members flirting with the boardrooms and the courtrooms. I remind him that many Labour Members who are involved with the boardroom and the courtroom are the most active in cross-examining the Government. No consideration is given in the Bill to the type of work or the amount of time it takes up. It is a catch-all Bill that has nothing to do with the workings of the House, but everything to do with old-fashioned class warfare. Even now, hon. Members are frightened to raise issues of which they have intimate knowledge because current rules say that if Members have an interest, they cannot say anything--even if they know that legislation, for example, is wrong--because it is against the Standing Orders of the House. That is wrong.
The electorate would be wholly disadvantaged by the Bill. The only winners would be Whitehall or Downing street, because it would result in an emasculated Parliament. I note that the hon. Member for The Wrekin has listed some of the activities that would be exempt under the Bill. I have checked the Register of Members' Interests and that list appears to coincide almost precisely with his own declaration of activities.
I was also curious to find out why the hon. Gentleman wished to promote this Bill, so I researched his background. He did a BA in American studies at Sussex university. That is not bad, because I did a masters degree at Sussex university. The hon. Gentleman went on to become a public affairs consultant, a research director for the Centre for Contemporary Studies, a director of Good Relations and managing director of Millbank Consultants. So he has never done a proper job.
I decided to analyse the questions asked of the Prime Minister by those hon. Members who have time to spend--the sort of Member that the hon. Gentleman would like to see in the House. For example, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) asked:
"It was great to see my right hon. Friend in Afghanistan earlier this week . . . encouraging our brave troops".--[Official Report, 9 January 2002; Vol. 377, c. 543.]
That was a question, apparently.
Just before Christmas, an hon. Lady asked this:
"My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will know that the Reading urban area has received an excellent local transport settlement of nearly £7 million and that it has also received £38 million for improvements to junction 11 on the M4. Does he agree--"
we have a question at least--
"that this is a wonderful Christmas present for the people of Reading".
That is an example of incisive questioning. What was the Prime Minister's answer to this difficult question?
"I agree--I think it is a wonderful Christmas present".
On the same day, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) asked a penetrating question, bearing in mind that thousands of people had been made redundant in the aircraft industry. Nevertheless, he said:
"I congratulate the Prime Minister on the Government's effective response to the difficulties in the aerospace industry after the events of 11 September."--[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 280-87.]
On 21 November, the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) asked this:
"After his no doubt healthy breakfast, did the Prime Minister have a chance to read the leader in The Guardian? Does he agree that affordable designer casualwear should be available in supermarkets throughout the country?"--[Official Report, 21 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 312.]
My final quote comes from the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams); I will not be too rude about her because she lives in the same block of flats as me and we often walk home together. On 14 November, she said:
"Now that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues are sorting out Railtrack--"--[Official Report, 14 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 858.]
Need I go on any further, Madam Deputy Speaker?
The Bill is a load of self-indulgent, unreconstructed, ill-thought-out tosh. It would weaken Parliament, not strengthen it. It may not be consigned to the dustbin today, but I have no doubt that the Labour Government will consign it to the dustbin and dump it tomorrow.
