All-party Parliamentary Groups

Supports the motion. Acknowledges the need for reform due to potential risks of improper lobbying and influence by foreign actors. Proposes a two-tier approach to governance and regulation, limiting the number of APPGs an MP can be an officer of and ensuring no secretariat is funded by a foreign government.

Declared his interests as chair of nine APPGs, expressing concern over the lack of profile for a report on APPG regulations. He noted that new rules could unintentionally deter active participation in APPGs.

Defended the process of gathering evidence for the report, stating there was substantial public and parliamentary engagement. Emphasised the distinction between APPGs and formal Committees of the House in terms of authority.

I agree with the need for transparency and financial accountability but have concerns about restricting membership to six APPGs. It is important that I take an interest in country APPGs relevant to my role as a trade envoy, which gives me wider knowledge. The restriction on membership seems over-egging the pudding. Finding 20 members for some APPGs dealing with obscure illnesses could be challenging. While supporting the vast majority of proposed measures, I agree with the Father of the House that we should delay a final decision.

Acknowledged the current challenges with oversight of 762 APPGs, praised the registrar and other staff for their efforts despite limitations. Stressed the need for clear rules that avoid overlap and duplication among APPGs. Rejected the idea of a gatekeeper deciding on new groups due to potential abuse of power. Emphasised the importance of not allowing commercial interests to gain accreditation through APPG names.

Suggested that it is unfair for a Member to make derogatory remarks without giving an opportunity for the person being addressed to respond. Recommended that interventions should only come from those who have been present throughout the debate.

Asked about the definition of membership in APPGs, noting concerns over the proposed rules limiting officers to six groups and requiring a minimum of 20 members. Highlighted issues with access to the guide to the rules on APPGs, advocating for all Members to have an opportunity to read it before concluding the debate.

Ms Winterton stated that no other complaints from Members regarding the distribution of copies were received. She criticised the interjections and interruptions, suggesting they disrupt the debate unnecessarily. She also pointed out that the hon. Member for Christchurch is on the Panel of Chairs and should understand the need for decorum.

Mr Carmichael apologised for not being present at the start of the debate but felt that late intervention was better than no intervention. He argued that APPGs are crucial for parties without automatic membership in Select Committees, highlighting the importance of their voices being heard.

Mr Loughton intervened to point out the limitations of having only four officers in an APPG. He argued that this would limit the representation across parties, making it less likely for a group to be genuinely all-party.

Mr Bottomley asked when the rules read out were agreed and questioned why they are available now. He also mentioned that few Members have had time to review these documents, expressing concerns about making decisions with such limited scrutiny.

Ms Brock corrected the record regarding her role as a co-chair of an APPG and questioned who the officers would turn to for advice on compliance with new rules.

Sir Peter expressed his support for working with the commissioner and other relevant parties to make necessary improvements but argued against retrogressive changes. He highlighted specific examples of all-party groups he chairs, such as the Austria group and the 12-step recovery programme group, emphasising their importance. Sir Peter was concerned about the impact of restricting chairmanships to six and proposed alternative transition arrangements.

Mr Carmichael agreed with Sir Chris's analysis but expressed fear over unintended consequences. He called for a review of the proposals if concerns prove to be correct, advocating for reassessment and revisiting the rules.

The Chairman of the Committee responded by stating that the rules on APPGs are within the prerogative of the Committee. He mentioned discomfort with several elements but suggested a possible reassessment of transitional arrangements if people make representations to the House.

Mr Loughton supported the Chairman's compromises and proposed revisiting the rules in September, suggesting that the issue does not need immediate resolution this month. He emphasised the importance of addressing unintended consequences while maintaining agreement on transparency issues.

Mr Chope raised concerns about the rigidity of proposed rules, particularly regarding officer replacements and group operations, arguing that such restrictions could be unworkable in practice.

Argued against a vote, highlighting concerns about commercial interests dominating political life through APPGs. Emphasised that large corporations with financial clout can buy influence via these groups, while ordinary citizens struggle to be heard. He noted the role of foreign entities in influencing Parliament and suggested that the Committee should refine its proposals to tackle malign aspects.

Urged colleagues not to divide today, emphasising it would be self-defeating to vote against the motion. He supported the work of the Committee on tackling issues with APPGs.