(APG0018)
Written evidence submitted by Mr Kevin Hollinrake MP
The value and benefits of APPGs to the House
APPGs are a valuable and dynamic part of life in parliament and are critical in the development of cross party collaboration. They are also a positive way to demonstrate that political life in Parliament goes beyond party politics and that MPs work effectively together on a non-partisan basis.
Transparency and appropriateness of funding of APPG activities and secretarial support
In order to be effective, APPGs require funding and support. It would be unreasonable to expect APPGs to function without this. This is particularly true of APPGs that do not have the support of large organisations or trade bodies. As long as the funding is declared, as is currently required, it is entirely reasonable to take donations and sponsorship for events.
The role of external secretariats to APPGs / The risk of APPGs being used for access by lobbyists, other organisations or by foreign governments, and how any conflicts of interests arising can be managed
As above, it would be unreasonable to expect APPGs to function effectively without support. However, this is an area where there could be enhanced transparency. First and foremost, with so many APPGs in existence, there is a case for further classifying the Groups.
The current breakdown is only between country and subject matter. Further classification could help here, eg groups that are supported by trade bodies/industries are classified separately from groups that are supported by charities or research bodies (such as APPGs on mental health, cancer, etc).
Likewise, there are groups that are formed specifically in response to constituent issues (mortgage prisoners, pensions scams, Connaught, fair business banking, windrush, cladding, etc). These groups are often the least well-resourced but need significant support and often rely on volunteers.
There should also be more clarity on the value of contribution from secretariats. Some APPGs have large lobbying firms providing secretariat support with only a small amount declared as a benefit in kind, which does not seem to accurately reflect the level of resource that the secretariat has at its disposal.
Use of Parliamentary passes by staff exclusively supporting APPGs
Not all groups have the resource and backing of large secretariats with separate offices, and often 100% of any funds raised must go to merely keeping administrative support for the group functioning. And whilst we are currently working from home, we hope that someday soon we will revert to a more normal, healthy working environment that allows Westminster to function as it should. Bearing that in mind, APPGs that require staff but do not have the support of large trade bodies, etc should have the ability to have parliamentary passes so they can work in a stable office environment.
The 2012 Speakers’ Working Group on All-Party Groups report[1] set out the key principles behind parliamentary passes for APPG staff. The report noted that these were a “valid category” of pass but recommended a higher eligibility requirement to be introduced to qualify for an APPG pass to bring it in line with the requirements for research assistants and secretaries. This recommendation was agreed by the House of Commons on 12 March 2012. The report also recommended that only staff who “work full-time of at least half-time for a Group – but not a combination of Groups – should be able to apply for such passes”.
In 2013, allegations arose that a MP was attempting to set up an APPG at the request of a political consultant. As a result, the Administration Committee recommended to the House of Commons Commission that there should no longer be a separate category of pass for the staff of APPGs. The commission then withdrew these separate APPG category of pass on 15th July 2013[2]. They did, however, note that (p.20) “we recommend that the Register should be refined to distinguish between bodies which are effectively clubs, such as the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hockey, and other APPGs with broader purposes”.
We would support the use of passes by APPGs, but clear criteria must apply. Namely, we believe that the original suggestion that those “work full-time of at least half-time for a Group – but not a combination of Groups – should be able to apply for such passes”. In addition, not all categories of APPGs should be allowed to have passes. For example, it would be inappropriate for a trade body or lobbying firm to hold passes.
At the same time, it is important that APPGs that do not have the resource and might of large organisations behind them are able to function effectively. A more targeted approach to APPG passes, which take into account the original principles of the Speakers Working Group by ensuring that those APPG that are not clubs and have a broader social purpose can be provided staff who work full time on APPG matters with Parliamentary passes to conduct their business. It does not have the be that a new category of pass is created but that MPs are allowed to use their pass allocation for APPG staff.
Financial governance and controls
The current requirements for reporting are sufficient, but as above, there could be increased transparency with regard to the in-kind value of support received.
Other governance and compliance issues, including assurance that APPGs are meeting relevant employment law and data protection laws
Bringing APPG staff standards and expectations in line with IPSA would be a reasonable requirement.
Status of APPGs within the House, including the risk of confusion with select committees, and branding of APPG activities and publications
The current guidance on this is comprehensive. However, for clarity having a comprehensive set of required APPG collateral that goes on publications, email communication and websites would help with consistency across APPGs.
Who should be accountable for ensuring an APPG complies with the rules
The Chair of the APPG
How APPGs can be better supported to comply with the rules
The current office is very helpful and approachable, but as always a comprehensive set of guidance and training is always appreciated.
The proportionality and effectiveness of current requirements on holding of AGMs and formal meetings, and election of officers
The current requirement are not overly onerous.
[1] https://www.parliament.uk/documents/speaker/Speakers-Working-Group-on-APGs-report.pdf
[2] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmstnprv/357/357.pdf