(APG0005)
Evidence submitted by Lord Lipsey
I am a strong supporter of All Party Groups. They provide valuable opportunities for MPs and Peers to keep themselves informed on subjects of interest to them. They provide opportunities too for civil society institutions with particular subject interests to keep in touch with parliamentary opinion. Some have proved very successful as lobbying groups: the APG on Gambling Related Harms springs to mind. Country groups foster knowledge of and contact between countries. I myself was until recently co-chair of three APG’s – Classical Music, Psephology, and Statistics- so I know well their benefits.
All that can be taken as read. But it does not follow from it that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
It is now (nearly) a decade since the last parliamentary inquiry into All Party Groups, which was set up in 2011 and reported in 2012. ( Speakers’ Working Group on All-Party Groups: report to the Speaker and Lord Speaker, 11 June 2012.)
This committee followed representations to both Speakers by Lord Jopling and myself- a somewhat unlikely coupling, it might be thought. We found we shared concerns about All Party Committee, as well as enthusiasm in principle for their role. Their numbers were burgeoning. Their subjects often seemed remote from the concerns of most MPs and Peers. Many seemed to be created on the initiative of non-parliamentarians, in particular PR firms looking for something to recommend to their (as ever misunderstood) clients. And there was a danger that, as things stood, they would be perceived as a way in which parliamentarians secured additional resources, for example for staff, without the necessary full transparency.
That committee was a joint committee set up by both Speakers. It was chaired by Jack Straw MP, and I was a member. It was by no means the first of its kind. For example there had been an examination by the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee, in the basis of a memorandum from the then Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in 2005-06. It is right that APGs should be regularly reviewed as mores evolve.
The most serious problem with APGs is their number. For APGs, R is definitely above 1! In 2012 there were 432 subject groups and with country groups a total of 566 APGs. Straw said it was “desirable that the increase is halted.” But in September 2020, the numbers had grown to 492. Moreover this may understate underlying growth. APGs have to be reformed after general elections. It seems likely that many delayed in doing so after the 2019 General Election. Then coronavirus meant that groups had to meet on-line which meant the convivial cross-party intercourse which is one of their attractions.Evidence for a hiatus followed by a near-explosion is shown by the fact that in February 2020 only 275 subject groups were listed, so in the months that followed the number has risen by nearly 80%.
Straw recommended a Panel be set up, not to ban new groups but to draw attention to overlaps and report to the House. But in a world where we have (citing at random from the register)All Party Groups on Snooker, on Land Value Capture, and Air Passenger Duty Reform; and where we have both Wine and Spirit and Wine of Great Britain and where in music we have Music, Classical Music, Music Education and in the last parliament anyway Jazz and Brass Bands, I would now go a tad further. I would empower the Panel to report to the house on their desirability of otherwise of proposed new groups. Nothing would stop an MP who was determined to set up a group from doing so but the possibility of an adverse report to the House might deter. This might help keep numbers down without actually banning any.
With the explosion of numbers, from casual observation over the years there has been a corresponding decline in attendance by MPs and Peers. For AGMs desperate pleas to parliamentarians are often made to attend to make up the numbers. It is not uncommon for members to be outnumbered heavily by outsiders. Sometimes, though the required quorum is achieved, this comprises no more than the chair and the odd Lord filling in time between votes. Parliamentarians are being asked to spread themselves unnecessarily thinly.
Finding chairs for groups is becoming demanding. One Stakhanovite MP, Sir Davis Amess, chairs nine APGs at the latest count. 16 further MPs chair 5 or more.
Number of APPGs chaired | Number of MPs |
5 or more | 17 |
2-4 | 101 |
1 | 141 |
0 | 391 |
Source: House of Lords library
A small minority MPs are choosing to chair many committees This problem has been exacerbated by the decision that each committee must have an MP chair. A peer will not do.
The secretarial support for such committees is often undertaken by outsiders, not by MPs or their staff. In the case of my committees, classical music was supported by the Association of British Orchestras; statistics by the Royal Statistical Society and psephology by an ad hoc arrangement with an expert with a strong interest in parliament. However, it is often the case that members of MPs offices act as secretaries. It is vital that such relationships are transparent so there can be no suspicion that the group is in existence partly to sustain members’ staff. I am uncomfortable with committees being directly staffed by PR agencies or staff from PR agencies. This can look perilously close to companies buying influence for their clients.
At the moment, adherence to the rules governing APGs is ultimately for their chairs and officers. However, there will be a temptation to devolve those responsibilities to others – the MP’s staff for example or the outside secretariat. There does not seem to be a strong enforcement mechanism for the current rules.
The Straw committee and the standards committee which followed it up was keenly aware of the danger that confusion could be spread in the public mind between the reports of APGs and those of Select Committees of the House. Mild rules eg on the use of the Portcullis emblem have not ended this danger. And of course it will remain prevalent when it is in the interests of unscrupulous journalists to pass off APG reports as if they were Select Committee reports so as to enhance their significance, The Select Committee brand is a strong one, in the Lords as well as in the Commons. It needs to be protected.
9 November 2020