My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 73 but, before doing so, I wish to say that I fully endorse the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, in relation to Amendment 72. He may recall that one particular Member of Parliament decided to publish a book—an act of fiction—on the front cover of which was the portcullis. It was clearly there to try to give the impression that the book was authorised by the House. The Member would not listen but the publisher did, to the extent that the royal crown—I think it was the prince’s crown—was taken off the second edition, although the portcullis gate was left on. That, at least, was something. It is right and fitting that the portcullis should be the symbol of both our Houses and not of any individual organisation.
Turning to Amendment 73, I recall the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, saying in an earlier debate that you have to know whom you are dealing with. That has to be clear. Those who hold press cards in the House of Commons are very well looked after, but it is the taxpayer, not their newspaper, who provides them with a desk and facilities. In fact, I believe that some journalists do not even have a place to hang their hat at their newspaper’s head office. I recall that only about five years ago the health and safety situation here was so bad for journalists—some of the senior reporters were using portakabins—that it was put to me that it was time we did something. Both Houses paid a share of £8 million to refurbish the Press Gallery. We even opened a restaurant, which is named after a highly respected journalist called Chris Moncrieff—it is called Moncrieff’s bar. We did all that and it is lovely. I was there to officiate at the opening, and so was Chris Moncrieff. I said, “It’s not bad that two teetotallers have opened up a drinking place”.
There was not one bad piece of publicity about that £8 million but nor was there one good piece of publicity about it. Nothing was said about it. Even now, I get very angry when I read pieces by journalists who are taking cheap shots. I also hear them doing it on Sky
News. They say, “Oh, they’re getting subsidised drink”, but they do not tell you that they are partaking of the subsidised food and drink.
That brings me to my concern, which is dual membership. You have to know whom you are dealing with. I could be in one of the cafeterias here having a cup of tea or whatever and bump into someone who I think is a journalist. If we enter into a discussion, I know whom I am dealing with. However, it would not do if the journalist were both a journalist and a lobbyist. You might ask whether that is possible. It is. Some people in the Press Gallery have been there for years and years, and they are entitled to be there, but sometimes their newspaper will say, “We’re sorry but you’re no longer required. You’re redundant”. That must have happened to the boys on the News of the World and there are others in that category. Some of them get to like this place so much that they will go to a regional newspaper or a publication and say, “I will be your reporter”. That would allow them to retain their press status, although not the salary.
9.30 pm
I have always prided myself on being a constituency MP but it has put me in an embarrassing situation. I remember one employer writing to me—the head office was in London but there was a factory in my constituency that made non-combustible boards. The employer was worried that fire regulations were going to be dropped and that people would put up plasterboard in airports rather than the non-combustible boards, which are also called non-asbestos boards. Between 200 and 250 people were employed in the company so I was keen to meet that employer. I thought that I would be meeting him alone in the House of Commons and would be able to say, “You’re employing local labour in my constituency and I will make that representation”. That is what a Member of Parliament is entitled to do. He was with someone who I thought was a reporter. I said, “Excuse me, but I didn’t expect to meet you here”. The person said, “I am lobbying on behalf of this company”. I took exception to that and said, “No one needs a facilitator to see their Member of Parliament”.
It is interesting that some of these big companies feel that when they come to Parliament they need to get themselves a lobbyist, yet small companies with 10 or 11 employees say, “I’m going to see the Member of Parliament in the Barmulloch community centre—that’s where Michael Martin sits on a Friday night”. They have more nous than the great captains of industry do in these matters. What appalled me was that this reporter was doubling up as a lobbyist. I think that that is wrong: you are either one or the other. When I was a metalworker in industry I did not go about the business of doing the welder’s job.
To be able to get a press credential is a very privileged position and many privileges come with it. Both Houses have provided some lovely facilities that the press are entitled to use. I will not go into the places that they are entitled to go, but when the new Portcullis House was opened they were entitled to use the facilities there. I do not see why they should be able to wear a reporter’s hat on a Monday and a lobbyist’s hat on a Tuesday. They should be one or the other—that is the case that I am putting.