Procedure of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
By definition, the Government of the day have a majority in the House and can remove a Speaker any day of the week. It is a tribute to our constitutional settlement that no Government have chosen even to attempt to do that since 1835. That is why the motion is so wrong. The Speaker used to be the appointee of the Crown, but today the Speaker is a servant of the House, not the poodle of the majority party. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is noise on both sides. We cannot have recurring noise when colleagues are speaking, from either side. Let us hear Mr Chris Bryant.
Chris Bryant
If the Speaker should have any bias at all, as has been the established practice for more than 150 years, it should be a bias in favour of allowing more debate and continuing discussion and enabling scrutiny. If, therefore, there is a bias at all, it must always be in favour of the Back Bencher, not the Government. For that reason, the Government are always tempted to get rid of a Speaker, but they have never chosen to do so until today. A Speaker should always be able to order proceedings without any fear or favour, in particular without any fear of the Government, the Executive or the Crown.
Kevin Brennan
Given that we have a constitutional convention that the Speaker is not opposed by the main parties and that the current Speaker will be standing on that basis, should the Conservative leadership want to get rid of him, should they not be putting up a candidate against him and allowing members of the public, in a secret ballot, to decide who they want to vote for?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Speaker does not stand on a party ticket, so if the good burghers of Buckingham decide that you, Mr Speaker, should be returned as Speaker, and then this House, because of a Conservative plot, decides to get rid of you, what is to become of you? Are you to return to the Back Benches? No Speaker has done that for more than 150 years. Every other candidate presented for Speaker will have stood on a party ticket. It would therefore be a profoundly irresponsible act for us suddenly to change the rules so that we end up with a party candidate rather than a non-party candidate as our next Speaker.
Chris Bryant
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because previously he exposed the whole rationale behind today’s debate, which is that he has a personal vendetta against Mr Speaker.
Gregory Barker
On the contrary, I have not made a single personal remark about the Speaker during my entire time in Parliament. The hon. Gentleman has wandered rather far from the motion. Will he address himself to it and tell us whether he is in favour of a secret ballot or against it? This is similar to when Labour consistently opposed secret ballots in the reform of the trade unions. It is their dirty little prejudice against real democracy.
Chris Bryant
If the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, let me say this. If he has not worked out my views on this by now, he must be a little dim. My biggest fear is that the Conservatives are planning to hand out the speakership to somebody else as part of the coalition negotiations, because they know they will not get a majority in the next Parliament.
Chris Bryant
I am not giving way any more, as I ought to draw my remarks to a conclusion.
I say to Conservative Members that when our procedure was crafted in 2001, we took the view that the re-election of a Speaker at the beginning of a new Parliament was, in effect, a vote of confidence in the Speaker. The Leader of the House suggested that anybody elected to a position of power over the people should be elected by secret ballot. The Prime Minister will also depend on a vote of confidence or a vote of no confidence. If the Leader of the House is to continue with this, his argument must be that a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister should be a secret ballot. Of course it should not. If Conservative Members genuinely believe that hon. Members will be so frightened that they will not be able to own up to the public how they voted on such a motion of confidence or no confidence in the Speaker, frankly, they have no confidence in one another.
The proceedings of this House were secret for centuries. John Wilkes campaigned to be allowed to reveal to the public what went on in this place. What did the majority Government do at the time? They used their majority to chuck him out of Parliament, and what did the voters do? They put him back in. What did the Government then do? They chucked him out. What did the voters do? They chucked him back in. They believed that this House’s proceedings should be in public and should be known to all so that voters could make their decisions.
The Leader of the House has done himself no favours; he has betrayed the confidence of the House today. He tabled his motion at some time about 7.30 last night. He did not notify the Opposition, but let us get over that. He is arguing that we should have a secret ballot for the election of the Chair of the Procedure Committee, yet he has deliberately gone behind the back of the very person who was elected by the whole House in a secret ballot. His argument bears no weight. Moreover, he constructed today’s one-hour debate in such a way as to make it impossible to table an amendment for consideration. It is completely impossible for us to consider a single amendment today. That is not the action of a Leader of the House who respects Parliament. That is why I say to him: in the name of God, go—and I think the people of this country will say the same.
Pete Wishart
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the great unhappiness about this process and the way this House has been bounced into considering it, is there any way that this question could not now be put?
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
Everybody is being very kind, but none of this will persuade me to stay. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for all his support and co-operation on North Yorkshire issues. There would be a great deal to say in a debate on North Yorkshire, including about the beer. I understand that a beer has been launched in my honour called Smooth Hague and I have already tasted it. We could debate all those things, and I hope, if I manage to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, at the end of the valedictory debate next week, to say a few sentences about the great people of North Yorkshire and what a privilege it has been to represent them over the past 26 years.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I first met the Leader of the House when I was 18 and I went to his 21st birthday party, which I remember was subtitled “wine, women and song”, so it is with mixed emotions that I congratulate him on leaving the House. We will miss him, but we are all looking forward to some wonderful new books, as he is a very fine writer. He says that he will keep up his campaign against the use of sexual violence in war and we all praise him for that, but who knows, perhaps he will appear down the corridor in a few weeks’ time in another guise.
May I ask him about the use of LIBOR fines announced yesterday? I gather that more announcements are coming today. Of course we support the Government’s announcements on how they are being given out, but it feels a bit like pork barrelling at the moment, as Treasury Ministers, without any formal process, have just been doling out cash to organisations that have not even asked for it. Would it not be better to go through the Arts Council or the Heritage Lottery Fund?
Deregulation Bill
Chris Bryant Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Brake
I want briefly to outline why the Government have introduced amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 38.
A television licence is required to watch all live or nearly live broadcast television content on any device in the UK. People should not seek to evade this and there needs to be an effective enforcement regime for the failure to have a TV licence.
Clause 76 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that a review of the TV licensing enforcement regime is carried out. This review will identify whether the current enforcement regime is appropriate and proportionate, and will ensure that there is a strong, evidence-based case for any changes to the TV licence enforcement regime. This matters a great deal to many people.
The Government are very clear that the review of the licensing enforcement regime is a high priority. The decision was taken to commence this review in advance of Royal Assent, while retaining the clause that commits the Government to carry out the review to ensure that this important piece of work is completed. The review is being led, independently, by David Perry QC. The findings of the review, which will complete by the end of June 2015, will be laid in both Houses of Parliament and be presented to the BBC Trust.
The proposed further amendment requires the Secretary of State within three months of the review reporting to set out whether the Government intend to decriminalise or not, and commits the Government to indicate clearly the timetable they plan to follow upon the completion of the Perry review. Our overriding aim is to ensure that the system is appropriate, proportionate and fair, and represents the best value.
This amendment places a firm commitment on the Government of the day to promptly and properly consider the report and set out their response and the timetable of steps to be taken, within three months of the report’s completion. Clause 77 confers a new power on the Secretary of State, via secondary legislation, to change the sanctions that apply to the failure to have a TV licence. We have always maintained that the report’s findings, and potential next steps, should be considered in the context of charter review. This position has not changed.
The BBC’s current charter expires on 31 December 2016. The Government will not begin charter review until after the election and there is no set process for how the review of the charter should be conducted, or when. It will be for the Government of the day to take forward any further actions as they see fit.
We must not make presumptions about the recommendations that Mr Perry will make, nor about how the Government will decide to take them forward, particularly as the public consultation element of this work is ongoing. Clearly, any changes will require serious consideration in the broader context of the charter review process, and it will be for the next Government to ensure that the right enforcement regime for licence fee payers, the courts and indeed the BBC itself is in place.
Our amendment ensures that the next Government will be ready and able to implement whatever recommendations David Perry, QC wishes to make, when the Secretary of State’s regulation-making power commences in April 2017. There was significant cross-party support for the TV licensing clauses during our earlier consideration of this Bill in this House. The firm commitments set out by the Government at that time must be honoured, particularly given that strong, cross-party support. Our amendments ensure that David Perry’s review will be promptly considered by the Government of the day, and that any potential changes are introduced to a clear timetable, leading up to 1 April 2017. For all the reasons I have outlined, I ask hon. Members to disagree with the Lords amendment and support our amendments in lieu.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Anybody would think, from the way the Minister just presented his case, that this has been a smooth path and everything the Government intended from the very beginning. But there was only an amendment relating to the licence fee at all because of a Government Back-Bencher, the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen)—who may be able to catch your eye a little later, Madam Deputy Speaker—and we have a change only because in the Lords the Government’s position was overturned by three votes. I am, of course, proud that we now have a far more sensible set of propositions before us. I admit that the Liberal Democrat heart that is still beating within the Minister is probably on our side in this argument, but he might at least have shown that that heart still beats, rather than just deliver what his paymasters in the Conservative party have told him to deliver.
The truth is that Labour Members support the BBC licence fee for the foreseeable future, not out of ideological passion but simply because it has worked and because the vast majority of people in this country support it. Everybody comes up with other ideas; every Select Committee that has ever examined this issue has set out this, that and the other idea for us to consider, but at the end has said that the least worst option is the licence fee. Broadly speaking, that is what the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport decided in its report a couple of weeks ago.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Bryant
Of course. I cannot think of anyone to whom I would want to give way more.
Mark Field
The lack of any other options on the Government Benches may have something to do with that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mistake the broad support on the Government Benches for a different and less stringent sanctions regime for support for the TV licence. I very much support the idea of a TV licence, but we need somehow to rein back what has been allowed to happen with TV licence sanctions. That is what drives most of the support for this amendment.
Chris Bryant
I did not give way to the hon. Gentleman faute de mieux. He is right in what he says, and some Opposition Members are as passionate in their support for the licence fee as he is, as I am or as Tony Hall is but want a change to the rules on how the licence fee is administered and the penalties for those who do not pay. My noble Friend Baroness Corston put forward a cogent and moving argument, to which one would have to be hard-hearted not to listen, on the criminalisation aspects of the current situation. Our point, which won substantially in the House of Lords, was that we have a system that broadly works, and if we want to change it, it would be better to change it in the round, rather than simply changing the licence fee. Let me explain why.
The licence fee is not just about funding the BBC’s programming, although it is true that it provides £3.7 billion of investment in the arts, broadcasting and British culture through the BBC, which it is difficult to see how any other model would deliver to the same degree. In addition, it provides for a degree of competition for quality, as well as for audiences, with the other broadcasters. Thus, ITV wants to make high-quality drama and does so; many of the dramas people often associate with the BBC are actually made by ITV. Likewise, Channel 4 has a special role to play because of the original remit it was given to be edgy, alternative and sometimes naughty. It can perform that public service broadcasting role within the whole ecosystem only if the BBC licence fee also exists and if Channel 4 remains in public hands. I am sure that the Minister would agree with me on that one about Channel 4, even if some Conservative Members might not.
The Opposition believe that it is important that there is the licence fee, and that it is a massive investment in production and drama, not just the kind of long-form dramas that exist in American commercial broadcasting and are often very lucrative, but the short-form dramas, such as “The Casual Vacancy”, which has been on the BBC over the past few weeks. It was only three episodes long and it would be very difficult to make in any environment other than one where there is some form of subsidy. In news, current affairs, comedy and so many different areas, the BBC would not be able to perform the same function without the licence fee.
Labour Members have been critical of the difficult time the BBC has had. Of course it always has to strive to make its resources stretch further, but since 2010 it has had not only a tough financial settlement but top-slicing, with a significant amount of money—some hundreds of millions of pounds—going off to fund the roll-out of broadband around the country. In addition, S4C is, in the main, being paid for not by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport but out of the licence fee, and the World Service is being paid for not by the Foreign Office, but out of the licence fee.
Andrew Bridgen
If the BBC has had such a tough financial settlement and it can no longer go on with a freeze on the licence fee, can the hon. Gentleman explain why the number of managers—not staff, but managers—who work for the BBC and are paid more than the Prime Minister has increased by 10% in the past 12 months?
Chris Bryant
Those are precisely the kinds of points the BBC has to address. It has to make sure that more and more of its money is spent on programming rather than on administration. That is why I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on one element of his campaign. He has argued forcefully that the collection system for the licence fee costs some £100 million a year and he has asked whether there is a better way of doing that. That is a perfectly legitimate question to ask.
Of course there are those—I see the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has just entered the Chamber at precisely the right moment—who would dismantle the licence fee. He is the only member of the Select Committee who voted to get rid of the licence fee completely. Some people would want to change it, and that is a perfectly legitimate argument to have. My concern about how the Government behaved on this issue is that the version they sent through to the House of Lords meant that the Government could have instituted the decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee without consideration of that issue within the whole package of other issues relating to the BBC and charter renewal. In effect, that would have left the door open to dismantling the licence fee without even intending to do so. I am certain that, as right hon. and hon. Members said in the House of Lords, if the Government were to proceed too swiftly, we would simply see a significant fall in licence fee take-up almost immediately. We could be talking about something in the region of £200 million or £250 million, which is more than the cost of all children’s broadcasting.
We need to think carefully about the timing of how we proceed, which is why Labour supported in the House of Lords the amendment that the Government are objecting to today, but not really objecting to. They are doing an adroit about-turn, for which we are deeply grateful. I wish to praise my colleagues in the House of Lords, particularly Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town, who made sure that the amendment was carried, with a lot of cross-Bench support and a significant amount of Liberal Democrat support.
Chris Bryant
I was on my very last sentence. Normally, hon. Members are clamouring for me to stop, but I see that the hon. and learned Member is clamouring for me to continue.
Sir Oliver Heald
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in principle it is wrong for somebody to be sent to prison for not paying the licence fee?
Chris Bryant
I believe in the licence fee. I would like to see decriminalisation. If we can achieve decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee in a way that does not dismantle the rest of the licence fee, yes, I would agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. However, in order to do that, one cannot simply send forward to Her Majesty legislation which suggests that the Government can introduce that decriminalisation in a few weeks’ time. We have to carry the amendment as tabled, substantially agreeing with the House of Lords, while pretending to disagree. I am grateful that the hon. and learned Gentleman passionately agrees with me. He still has a beating socialist heart and will support the licence fee, as we shall.
Andrew Bridgen
I start by expressing my deep disappointment that the amendment has been added to the Bill by the House of Lords, by a narrow majority of only three noble Members, in order to maintain the status quo and perpetuate criminalisation of non-payment of the TV licence for at least another two years—an eleventh-hour attempt to frustrate the clear will of this House and of the country.
It should be noted that five of the votes in favour in the other place came from the ex-BBC chairman, Lord Grade, in whose name the amendment stood; the ex-BBC “Play School” presenter, Baroness Benjamin; an ex-BBC governor, Baroness Deech; the ex-BBC “EastEnders” actor, Lord Cashman; and BBC producer Viscount Colville. They all spoke in the debate and voted in favour of the amendment.
Chris Bryant
In referring to all those Members, the hon. Gentleman might also point out their slightly wider career paths. For example, Lord Grade was head of ITV and spent most of his career in broadcasting in the commercial sector, so it is fascinating that the commercial sector and the public sector agree.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I do not think it is fascinating; we are not here to debate Members of the other place. We are here to debate the Lords amendments so, Mr Bridgen, I require you to desist from reminding us what happened in the other place, because we can read it, and to direct your comments to the amendments before us.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
As ever, I am grateful for the questions from the hon. Lady. It shows what a broad party we are that we welcome views from all parts of the galaxy, as she has just demonstrated. On the question of what is behind every great man, I have always thought that behind every great man is an astonished mother-in-law, so that is a further refinement of that phrase. I can assure her that the Prime Minister knows where his constituency is and it is of course in west Oxfordshire even though that might not be its name. It would be wise, of course, for all candidates from all parties to know the boundaries of their constituencies for the general election.
On the so-called car crash interview of the leader of the Green party, I think she has been taking lessons from the shadow Chancellor, who has given a series of disastrous interviews in which he has managed to fall out with his own window cleaner, quite apart from anything else. I have previously put the hon. Lady forward for her party leadership, but I really think she ought to consider being the shadow Chancellor in the coming general election campaign, because a shadow Cabinet member has said that if the shadow Chancellor
“carries on behaving like this he is not unassailable…He has complete contempt for colleagues. He’s not a team player.”
The hon. Lady is a team player and she could replace him. I think she would do a much better job than he has done. Indeed, Labour might not then need to bring back Lord Prescott to the front line of the campaign, which in any election campaign is a sure sign of desperation.
Mr Hague
I have enormous respect for Lord Prescott, but having to go back 10 years is a sign of desperation for Labour.
On a more serious question, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) asked about Government waste. I remind her that this Government have saved, thanks to the Cabinet Office Ministers, more than £10 billion a year just by making elementary things in government more efficient. They have done that year on year by making sure that contracts are not excessive and that Government Departments buy services together. This Government have rooted out waste in government.
The hon. Lady asked about the estimates days, the subjects for which are, of course, chosen by the Liaison Committee, so there is a well-established procedure. The hon. Lady has reforms in mind, but as things stand it is the role of Select Committees and questions in this House to hold Ministers to account. Although I am not closing off any sort of reform, that will be a question for the new Parliament, in which, as the hon. Lady has noted, I will conveniently not be present.
The Prime Minister dealt with the question of correspondence yesterday. The rules are exactly the same as they were under the previous Government and they are observed.
I am pleased that the long-term economic plan has entered the hon. Lady’s vocabulary, as well as that of the rest of the House and the country. I know she tried to alter one of those words, but it shows that that phrase has entered the economic vocabulary not just of the nation, but of the world. The head of the OECD stated this week:
“My main message to you today is well done. Well done so far, Chancellor. But finish the job. Britain has a long-term economic plan, but it needs to stick with it.”
The Chancellor is backed by economic commentators across the world, unlike the shadow Chancellor, who has fallen out with his own window cleaner. That is the actual choice before the country in the coming election.
The hon. Lady asked about yesterday’s debate. One of the points I made during it is that there have been many improvements to transparency and accountability in this Parliament and there will be scope for further improvements, but neither I nor the House agree with the hon. Lady’s proposals. She said that millions were being earned. I recall that one of the few Members recording more than £1 million in outside earnings in this Parliament was the brother of the Leader of the Opposition before he left the House. I note that the Leader of the Opposition did not put forward his proposals for reform until his brother had left the House of Commons. Perhaps he is in favour of family businesses, after all—you never know—or perhaps we have found the limits of fratricide: it’s all right to stab your brother in the back politically, but not to cut off his earnings as well. How extremely thoughtful of the Leader of the Opposition.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is quite right to raise this issue. I cannot pledge Angelina Jolie to engage with issues other than those on which I already work with her, but he is absolutely right that what is happening in that region involves the devastation of antiquities as well as so many atrocities inflicted on human beings, which are, of course, our top concern—particularly the enslavement of people and the tyrannical and brutal treatment of people living in areas taken over by ISIS, or ISIL. It shows the importance of the action we have taken with other nations, working with the Government of Iraq and with the Kurdish Regional Government. As my hon. Friend knows, that action is having some success in turning back the advance of ISIS, or ISIL. He will be able to raise the issue with Foreign Office Ministers at questions on Tuesday—if he catches your eye, Mr Speaker.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
We all want to sort out mobile telephony coverage around the country, but the way in which the Government have proceeded by introducing significant amendments to the electronic communications code at the very last stage of the Infrastructure Bill is a wholly inappropriate way of doing business. The mobile network operators are furious about it, and we will not be able to support the changes, even though we would love to see proper change. Without two days for Report, it is going to be impossible to get this right. The danger is that we will then not have the change that the Government, the Opposition, the mobile network operators and everybody wants. The Government may lose in the House of Lords and lose their Bill.
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman raises the same point as others, including the shadow Leader of the House. I do not have much more to add to what I said earlier. I said I would look at the evidence and representations on the matter and will always listen to concerns about adequate time for debating legislation. On any Bill for which representations are made for more time and more time is given, it is important to use that time—otherwise it takes up time to debate for other matters. [Interruption.] That has been the pattern so far.
Devolution (Implications for England)
Chris Bryant Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
These proposals fundamentally breach the theory advanced by William Pitt and William Wilberforce in the Act of Union 1801, which declared that all Members of this House should be equal—whether they are on the Back Benches or Front Benches, however big their majority and whatever kind of constituency they represent. The proposals will also lead to a bifurcated Government and they will drag the Speaker, whoever they may be, into constant party political decisions about whether or not a Bill is an English-only Bill, which is why I fundamentally disagree with them. But will the Leader of the House explain why it can possibly be right for Baron Smith of Kelvin in Glasgow to be allowed to vote on legislation on which the Member of Parliament covering Kelvin in Glasgow, who is elected, will not be allowed to vote?
Mr Hague
The answer is that Members of the other House are not elected representatives of any particular part of the country. [Interruption.] That is the answer. If the hon. Gentleman did not know the answer to that, he does not know the answer to very much. He should be careful about going into the history of the Act of Union with Ireland. He is quite right that William Pitt the Younger advocated that all Members of this House should be equal, but that is because the Irish House of Commons voted itself out of existence in 1799, and the decision was made to have a Union Parliament without any devolved Parliaments. What has happened in the past 15 years is the introduction of devolved Parliaments, so we have an entirely different situation from that prevailing in 1800.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
We always expect a literary reference from my hon. Friend. I am not in control of the timing of the report’s release, although Ministers certainly hope it will be available in the not too distant future. My hon. Friend will recall that in 2006 I was moving motions from the Opposition Benches calling for such an inquiry that were resisted for two years.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
No, you backed the nationalist motion; you didn’t move it.
Mr Hague
The right hon. Member for Blackburn happens to be in the Chamber at the moment. The motion to appoint the rest of the Governance Committee that will serve with him—as the House has agreed—is on today’s Order Paper. The House of Commons Commission will, of course, have to make sure that the temporary arrangements for the governance of the House are sufficiently robust, but every opportunity must remain fully to respect the wishes of the House and nothing should be done to pre-judge the outcome of the Committee,
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I was going to ask the Leader of the House why the welcome Church of England Measure that we will debate on Monday allowing the ordination of women bishops, to which he referred, includes a clause, clause 2, that would carve the Church of England out of the Equality Act—a new amendment to that Act. I suspect he does not know the answer, so I shall ask him this instead: when will he table the money resolution for the Affordable Homes Bill? That was a point from the shadow Leader of the House to which he forgot to reply.
Mr Hague
I absolutely did not forget to reply to it, although I have noticed that all Opposition Members have still forgotten to mention the deficit. The amnesia has spread almost to the entire Labour party. I said that the Government are considering the money resolutions, and of course they will continue to do so in the normal way.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
This is a matter of fairness for the whole of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend raises now, and has raised before, this very important issue. Discussions are taking place within the Government under the auspices of the committee that I chair. I have also invited Labour Members to attend that committee and put forward their own proposals. As I have said publicly, I believe we need to set a deadline and say that if we do not have cross-party agreement by the end of November—the same timetable as that for Scotland—then it will be important to test the opinion of the House.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On 5 September, the House granted a Second Reading to the Affordable Homes Bill, which will go some way towards getting rid of the bedroom tax. So far the Government have not yet tabled the money resolution that would allow it to go into Committee. Will the Leader of the House please commit this afternoon to tabling it by the end of business tomorrow?
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
I am grateful as always to the hon. Lady. What she has said about Jim Dobbin was one of many heartfelt tributes in the House this week.
We will always keep the House updated—although we are entering a four-week recess for the conferences and the referendum—on developments in foreign affairs. Yesterday we had a foreign affairs debate in which many hon. Members took part. The Government will keep the House updated whenever possible.
I am pleased—it is unusual for me to say this—that the Labour party is out campaigning. The shadow Leader and I will be doing so—not together, although we will both be in Scotland—[Interruption.] Well, perhaps we will meet up later today. We will be on the same side, and for an important reason: as we discussed in the House yesterday, the decision to be made next week by the people of Scotland is not an opinion poll or an election; it is a permanent decision that will affect their children and grandchildren. Therefore, it is right that this will have such intense attention over the coming days.
The hon. Lady referred to the process put forward by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). All the main parties have endorsed the proposed timetable, including for a Command Paper to be published at the end of October.
The hon. Lady asked about last week’s private Member’s Bill debates. As discussed at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, this is, in our eyes, a basic matter of fairness. The Bill that has been introduced would cost the country up to £1 billion, but I have not heard any proposals on how to replace that money. Many of the people whom the Bill intends to help are already supported within the existing policy—elderly people are exempt and disabled people who need overnight care from a visiting carer are allowed an extra bedroom. Of course, the House takes its own view on private Members’ Bills, but Government policy on the matter has not changed.
I am pleased that the hon. Lady, unusually, turned to employment matters, but she ought to have referred to the prediction of the Leader of the Opposition that 1 million jobs would be destroyed by Government policy. Since then 1,750,000 jobs have been created in this country; long-term unemployment is down, both on the last quarter and since the election; the Work programme is helping 1.4 million people, and has already got more than 500,000 people into work; and we have more than 1.8 million apprenticeship starts since the election. That is a strong record on employment and it will be a major factor at the coming general election.
Talking of elections, I thank the hon. Lady for referring to the Newark by-election, which was a great Conservative election victory—in fact, the first by the Conservative party in government since I was elected 25 years ago, which just shows how well we are doing in the run-up to the general election. She linked that with asking, as always, about the whereabouts of the Chief Whip, who is on his way to Clacton to campaign in the by-election. She will find plenty of Conservative MPs campaigning in Clacton, including me next week. That will be another of my visits around the country and I look forward to it.
Mr Hague
I will be going to Clacton next week, and I trust that Opposition Members will be going there, because in Newark their vote fell, which, for an Opposition, is quite remarkable in a by-election. If they are not careful, the same will happen in Clacton. We all enjoy taking part in by-elections, and that is particularly so for the one in Clacton.
I note that the hon. Lady has written an article for the LabourList website, which talks about the Labour party now showing
“real fiscal responsibility and an understanding that in the next Parliament we will have less money to spend, not more.”
Will she convey that to the shadow Chancellor, or, still better, become shadow Chancellor? I would happily nominate her for that post, because he does not seem to show any recognition of having put the country £160 billion a year in debt. He recently racked up £21 billion of spending commitments without having the slightest idea of how to pay for them.
Mr Hague
The investment that my hon. Friend mentions is coming in to provide additional capacity to meet the expected increase in the number of peak-time passengers arriving at London Waterloo, and it is targeting the suburban network by creating extra platform capacity. A small number of evening peak services to Portsmouth will be lengthened, with more cars in the train, and I hope she welcomes that. I know that she will continue to make the case for investment that benefits her constituents. Again, there are many opportunities open to her, and to other hon. Members, to raise such issues in the House.
Chris Bryant
Having spent Monday and Tuesday in Clacton-on-Sea and Wednesday in Glasgow, back here it feels a bit like a Greek tragedy is going on, because all the action is happening everywhere other than in Parliament. Everything the Leader of the House announced for the future business feels, yet again, like a whole load of largely irrelevant matters compared with the imminent danger to the state of the Union, the collapse of the effing Tories, the imminent dangers that people are facing in terms of rail fare increases, and, most importantly, the bedroom tax—the one issue on which we did actually have a debate, when last Friday we came to a resolution in this House by a significant majority—which affects thousands of people. Yet still the Leader of the House will not announce when he is going to table the money resolution so that the Bill can go into Committee. When will that be?
Mr Hague
Well, the Conservative party will be having an open vote on who is the candidate, because we believe in as much democracy as possible in by-elections. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not deride too much what has been going on in this House. He is right that there is a great deal going on elsewhere, including the referendum campaign, which is crucial, as we have all agreed. However, yesterday we had a full day’s debate on foreign affairs—on Ukraine, the middle east and all matters of international and national security. When we come back, we are going to consider the Recall of MPs Bill—something that was mentioned in all our party manifestos at the last election and is in the coalition programme. I hope that he will not run down too much what is happening in the House of Commons. As he knows, last week’s vote was on a private Member’s Bill, as distinct from a change in Government policy, and of course we will treat it as such in the normal fashion.
Summer Adjournment
Chris Bryant Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) on his speech. I disagreed with every word of it. I was intrigued to hear that he is the chair of what I think he called the Government herb committee. That conjured images from my childhood of the television programme, “The Herbs”. Parsley the Lion, Dill the Dog, Lady Rosemary and Bayleaf the Gardener all went flooding through my mind.
I was delighted by the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). I completely agree with her on the bedroom tax. I am determined that when Labour wins the general election next year, we will repeal the bedroom tax. If the Deputy Leader of the House, who will wind up for the Government, is still a Member of Parliament then, I look forward to him voting with us, even if he cannot bring himself to vote with us on this matter before that date.
I wish to raise two specific issues. The first is concussion in sport. Members may know that in the United States a legal action against the National Football League has led to a $1 billion class suit. It looks as if the money set aside by the sport will still not be enough to compensate those who have suffered from industrial injuries. That was due to the negligence shown by the sport, and the cover-up: the sport had conducted research, but was not prepared to make it public. I believe—as do some other Members; we have produced a joint report—that exactly the same thing is happening in the United Kingdom. The sporting bodies in this country need to take this matter far more seriously than they do.
On 19 January 2002, Jeff Astle died. He was perhaps one of the most iconic soccer players of the late 20th century. He played for West Bromwich Albion and was renowned as a great header of the ball. The coroner decided that he had died because of repeated minor traumas to his head caused by heading the ball. Some people say that football has changed in the intervening years. However, the research conducted in the US shows that the use of a lighter ball makes absolutely no difference to the chronic traumatic encephalopathy that can be suffered by players.
When Jeff died, the Football Association in this country promised—it swore blind to Jeff’s family, his lovely widow and his daughters—that it would conduct 10 years of thorough research, and that it would make that research public. To date, no research whatever seems to have been done. If any research has been done, it has been covered up and not made public. Not only is that a disgraceful way to treat the family of Jeff Astle, but the FA is verging on the criminally negligent in how it is treating other players who are in exactly the same position.
We only had to watch two of the last matches of the World cup to see examples. In the final, Christoph Kramer was playing for Germany when he received what was quite clearly a concussion, but he went back on to play. Afterwards, he said that he could not even remember most of the first half of the match because of the blow he had taken to his head. Javier Mascherano, one of the Argentine players, was also clearly concussed in a semi-final game, but went back on to the field of play. That sends the message to young boys and girls playing many different sports in which they might receive a blow to the head that it is better to go back on the pitch, even if they have received such a blow.
To appreciate the all-too-possible danger of a double impact, particularly to children, we need only consider the case of Ben Robinson, who a few years ago went back on the pitch, received a second concussion and died. Of course, I am not saying that every child should be wrapped in cotton wool—we want people to enjoy their sport—but the message coming from big sport, broadcasters, doctors and sporting bodies is that it is better to get back on your feet, go back on and play. Where there is good research proving that chronic traumatic encephalopathy is leading to long-term depression, mental illness, early onset dementia and possibly suicide, surely to God we need to take that seriously, and where there is no research, in sports with regular brain injuries, surely to God we need to ensure that research is done, and all the sporting bodies need to work together.
That is why the hon. Members for Salisbury (John Glen) and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), two peers, Lord Addington and Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, and I have produced a joint report calling on the Health Committee or the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of this House to conduct a parliamentary inquiry, bringing together all the facts from sporting bodies, doctors, the NHS and schools, and coming up with a single message: concussion will not always kill, but we must take it seriously because on occasions it can be fatal. I commend those journalists at The Mail on Sunday—I do not often say that—and The Guardian who have taken this issue seriously. However, I hope the Minister—and other hon. Members, if they know anyone on either Select Committee—will encourage colleagues to produce such a report before the general election.
In this potpourri or smorgasbord debate, I want to move, seamlessly but briefly, to the issue of Russia, for one simple reason. I had responsibility for our relationship with Russia in the last Labour Government, and I worry that the Government, though they might now be making all the right noises, have not been doing so consistently, and therefore effectively, in relation to Russia. When they came to power, they understandably wanted to draw a line under the Litvinenko case, move on and establish better trading relations with Russia. I am delighted that they have now changed their mind and that today the Home Secretary announced a proper public inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, because we owe it to his widow, who simply has not had justice yet and is a courageous and independent-minded women.
We also have to be clear about the case of Sergei Magnitsky, who was murdered in a Russian jail because he unveiled corruption in Russia while working for a British company. If we already have travel bans on some Russians coming to the UK, we should surely be saying that everyone involved in that corruption and murder is not welcome in this country. This House passed that resolution unanimously on 7 March 2012, and instead of all the mealy-mouthed nonsense I have heard on the eight occasions I have asked this question, the Government should get on and announce such a ban. This is a cross-party issue. France and Germany are showing a dereliction of duty in their relationship with Russia, which will always want to pick off one country after another in Europe and end up with a free pass. We have to stand together and show that Russia is currently acting more like Hitler in the Sudetenland than a modern, 21st-century democracy.