Points of Order

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for what he said. I am trying to wrap it up, but of course we must hear from Chris Bryant.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Deputy Leader of the House is somewhat mistaken in his interpretation of what happened yesterday evening. I think there was a clear desire by many hon. Members not just to debate the particular issue of thresholds but actually to debate clause 6, which has not been debated at all in any shape or form in this House. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary is saying from a sedentary position that I was wasting time. I profoundly object to the fact that when we choose to scrutinise his legislation, he is calling into question my good faith.

The truth of the matter is that the Government did not provide enough time for the debate. In addition, the Deputy Leader of the House last night, when he suggested to me that he was bringing forward this new motion, said that it was because all the rest of the stuff that we were going to debate tomorrow was a pile of dross and did not need very much analysis. I hope that there will be a process of ensuring that the House of Lords is made fully aware of the fact that today’s programme motion makes absolutely no difference to whether or not yesterday we had any opportunity to consider the three clauses and three schedules that were before the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I certainly cannot go into all of that. Suffice it to say that I think the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made constitutes a self-fulfilling prophecy; in so far as he is concerned that the other place should be aware of his interpretation of last night’s events, he has made it aware of his interpretation by what he has just said. It is on the record and I am sure it will be studied carefully there and elsewhere.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) for giving me notice of his point of order. It is not for me to rule on what has happened in Committee of the Whole House. On the wider issue he raises, it is not unprecedented—the hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House since 1984, so he will testify to the truth of this—for a Minister to move a Back-Bench amendment, even if he or she does not wish to vote for it. As the First Deputy Chairman said last night:

“What the Government propose is orderly under Standing Order No. 83D(2)”—[Official Report, 18 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 767.],

although it is, as some hon. Members have observed—including, today, the hon. Gentleman—somewhat unusual. I am sure that hon. Members will also have noted the opportunities open to them, as has been remarked, on Report. Members present will certainly have noted what the Deputy Leader of the House has just said.

I hope that is helpful; I am not keen to take, and indeed I am keen not to take, further points of order on that matter, but I think we have a point of order from Mr. Andrew Rosindell.

Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman’s question is tied up with the CSR and the resources that will be available to the Secretary of State for Transport. However, I will convey to the Department his strong bid for continuing investment in light rail in Nottingham.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on Foreign Office finances before the comprehensive spending review is announced? In June the Foreign Secretary announced that there would be £55 million of Foreign Office cuts in the current financial year, and in a written ministerial statement he set out where £18 million of those cuts would be found. However, he has not told us the rest of the story. Will the BBC World Service be cut in the current financial year? Will the British Council be cut in the current financial year? Or—as has been suggested—has the Foreign Office budget received a £37 million bung from the Department for International Development, which would directly contradict what the Leader of the House said earlier about the DIFD budget being protected?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman says that we have not told the rest of the story. The people who did not tell the rest of the story were Labour Members, who went into the last election committed to a reduction of some 20% in public expenditure, while giving no indication whatsoever of where those cuts would come from. Until there is some honesty from Labour Members about how they would have confronted the legacy that they have left us, they will have absolutely no credibility on the issue.

Queen’s Speech (Date)

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I shall let the Leader of the House into a secret: when we were in government, we did not introduce perfect legislation all the time. Just about the only thing that managed to make us drop particular bits of Bills or individual clauses or bring in and support amendments was the fact that we might lose the whole Bill because the end of the Session was coming along. In all honesty, I think that although it might be absolutely right to have proper annual Sessions when we go over to a fixed-term Parliament, having one two-year Session is a problem and he ought to reconsider.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful for the admission at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks that the last Government did not get everything right. One mistake we are determined not to make is that of giving inadequate time to the House of Commons to debate serious Bills. We are proposing more days in the current Session in order to give longer time for the consideration of the Bills that we have introduced. He also totally overlooked the provision, which all Governments have if they find that they are reaching the problems that he has just outlined, of carrying over Bills.

Privilege

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That the matter of hacking of honourable and right honourable Members’ mobile phones be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

The vast majority of those who had their phones hacked were not MPs, but of necessity this motion deals solely with the hacking of MPs’ phones. That is not because we are in any sense more important than anyone else—it is a scandal that the royal princes, footballers, actors and, in many cases, ordinary members of the public had their phone messages intercepted and interfered with. While I passionately believe in the freedom of the press, and agree that investigative journalism is an important and proud tradition in this country, illegal hacking, suborning police officers and obtaining information by illegal means do not enhance our democracy. In fact, they undermine it.

This motion is exclusively about this House because I contend that it is a contempt of Parliament and a severe breach of parliamentary privilege to intercept the mobile phone messages of elected Members, to tap their phones, to bug their conversations, to intercept their e-mails or to seek to do so.

There are those who would want to play this down. People have said to me, “After all, what’s the fuss about a few phone messages?” I ask hon. Members what the last phone message was that they had left on their answer phone. It might have been a soppy, sentimental message from their wife or partner, but it might have been something far more significant. It might have been a Minister ringing about a piece of legislation—in parliamentary language, a proceeding in Parliament. It might have been the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ringing about a highly sensitive matter and leaving a message. Or it might have been a constituent ringing their elected Member of Parliament, leaving a message and asking them to return a call about something that was highly confidential to them.

The House has rightly been very angry in the past when it has been felt that the right of an MP to speak without let, hindrance or interception, which stems in essence from the Bill of Rights 1689, has been violated. It took action on several occasions in the 18th century, on many occasions in the 19th century and on more than 15 occasions in the 20th century. It is for that reason that we have a secure doctrine—the Wilson doctrine—that MPs will not be bugged by the security services, and I am sure that were there any information that MPs had been bugged by the security services, many hon. Members would be on their feet to condemn it.

The reason this reference is necessary now is simple. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which is admirably chaired by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale)—he should probably be the right hon. Member for Maldon, and for all I know he might be the right hon. Member—produced an excellent report on the wider issue. Since then, however, there has been new information. First, several MPs, including myself, have contacted the Met and have discovered that we were the subjects of Glenn Mulcaire’s investigations. In the words of the Metropolitan police, we were persons of interest to Mr Mulcaire. I am sorry to say that in very few, if any, of those cases have the police pursued any lines of investigation.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward and on seeking to have the matter referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee. Is he aware that the Information Commissioner published a report, “What Price Privacy Now?”, in December 2006, in which he unveiled the solid evidence that illegal information had been supplied to 305 named journalists working for a variety of newspapers, and does he agree that, if the Press Complaints Commission had any gumption or mettle, and was capable of investigating this sort of issue, we would not need to refer this matter to the Select Committee? Indeed, the Information Commissioner said that

“the Press Complaints Commission (and its associated Code of Practice Committee of Editors) should take a much stronger line to tackle any involvement by the press in the illegal trade in personal information”.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is right. If hon. Members have not had an opportunity to read the Information Commissioner’s report, I urge them to do so. It is quite astounding. It lists the number of transactions positively identified: the Daily Mail, 952; the Sunday People, 802; the Daily Mirror, 681; The Mail on Sunday, 266; the News of the World, 182; and so on. It is an absolutely devastating report, and my concern is that the PCC has done nothing, and hardly anyone else has done anything. It is time that the House took responsibility for what areas we can.

The House has rightly been angered about this issue. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee produced a report, but there is more information. I suspect that, so far, we have seen only the tip of the iceberg in relation to right hon. and hon. Members, and that the hacking extended not just to Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs but to a large number of Conservative Members. I urge every right hon. and hon. Member who has any suspicion that they might have been a person of interest to Mr Mulcaire, which probably includes the vast majority of us, to write to the Met asking whether they were included, because Assistant Commissioner Yates made it clear the other day, in evidence to another Select Committee, that he has not been notifying Members. We have to do the work ourselves.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Standards and Privileges Committee should look in particular at why the police did not approach Members named in the information they had in order to acquire more evidence from those Members, who were unaware—and still are unaware, in many cases—that their names were on the list? Is that not a hugely important issue that the Committee should investigate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is right. If somebody went to the police and alleged that somebody was stalking them, and the police visited the stalker’s house and found not only photographs of, and personal details about, the person who made the allegation, but photographs of another 20 people, I presume and hope that the police would go to those other 20 people and inform them that their personal situation had been compromised and that they had been the subjects of that person’s activities. The police should have engaged in precisely the same duty of care towards not just right hon. and hon. Members, but any member of the public who had been the subject of Mr Mulcaire’s attention.

There is a second piece of new information. Two former members of staff at the News of the World have said that the hacking was far more extensive than so far revealed. Indeed, today, Paul McMullan, a former features executive and member of the News of the World’s investigations team, has said that he personally commissioned several hundred illegal acts, and that the use of illegal techniques at the newspaper was absolutely no secret.

Thirdly, although it has been stated that the case was an isolated bad apple, the Information Commissioner, as the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) has mentioned, has suggested that the unlawful trade in confidential personal information is extensive across the media, citing more than 1,000 transactions positively identified by a large number of newspapers. Looking through the list, it seems that the only newspaper that is not included is the Rhondda Leader.

Why refer the matter to the Standards and Privileges Committee? First, because it is the senior Committee of the House. Secondly, because, by referring it to the Committee, it will have the support and full authority of the whole House—nobody can gainsay it. When the matter of the arrest of the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) was referred to a specially created committee of privileges, that committee resolved that such an instance should be referred not to a special committee, but to the Standards and Privileges Committee.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

indicated assent.

[Chris Bryant]

I see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who chaired that committee is nodding his assent.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

I welcome the Speaker’s decision, in the best traditions of the House, to allow this debate, so that all Members of the House can defend the rights of all Members to carry out their duties without having their phones hacked into. Does my hon. Friend share my hope that there will be full co-operation from Downing street, not least because the lesson of Watergate is that the cover-up is worse than the crime?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is right. One of the reasons for referring the matter to the Standards and Privileges Committee is that it carries the authority of the whole House, and I hope that that would mean that every right hon. and hon. Member, including those at Downing street, would want to co-operate.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I see the Leader of the House nodding his assent. I am sure that it would be true.

I urge the Committee to use all the powers at its disposal, including the power to summon any person it wishes and to require them to attend, because some people refused to attend the previous inquiry held by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. If necessary, it should issue warrants to require witnesses to attend, and if they still refuse, it should use the offices of the Serjeant at Arms. Likewise, it should be free to use its power to require a witness to answer a question under pain of admonishment by the House. We should not accept it when witnesses simply refuse to give a straight answer to a straight question. That should not be standard practice, which it is becoming. The House should become far more carnivorous.

Given that some of the issues we are dealing with are matters of privacy, and we would not want to invade the privacy of those who have already had their phones hacked, the Committee should feel free to take some of its evidence in private if necessary. It should not shy away from recommending motions to the House enforcing its decisions, if it feels it appropriate to do so. Those decisions could include barring a person or persons from the precinct of Parliament, withdrawing a pass from any pass holder or a group of pass holders, or calling somebody to the Bar of the House for admonishment by the House.

It is for the Committee to decide precisely how it conducts its inquiry. Indeed, it should be free to decide the timing of its inquiry and report, how best it interacts with other Select Committees and, importantly, how best it avoids conflicting with any ongoing police investigation. I hope that there is an ongoing police investigation, because from what I have heard so far from the police, I have no confidence that there is a full police investigation into every avenue, searching for evidence. I would particularly abhor the fact that the police seem to have developed a new theology, whereby it is for the victim to discover and provide the evidence, rather than for the police to engage in an investigation to find it.

I suggest that the Committee might look at the following areas. How many MPs, including Ministers, Opposition spokespeople and Back Benchers of all parties, were the subject of investigation by Glenn Mulcaire—or, in the police’s words, a “person of interest” to Mr Mulcaire? Did they include serving Government Members or people who are now in senior Government positions? Was the hacking limited to the News of the World or did it include other newspapers? Were the security services notified of the hacking of Ministers’ and others’ phones? Are there any further security measures that this House should take to protect Members’ correspondence? Did the Met fully perform its duty of care towards the House by contacting all Members whose names and phone numbers were included in the material secured when it raided Mr Mulcaire’s offices?

Have any witnesses who have already given evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on the matter lied to the House? Should the interception or attempted interception of right hon. and hon. Members’ phone messages or e-mails be considered an explicit breach of privilege? Should the House adopt a new resolution defining privilege in the modern era to include modern technology? Should the law be changed to strengthen further the provisions against the hacking of the phones of MPs and members of the public? What action should be taken by the House against those who have lied to it, breached its privilege or shown contempt to it?

I hope that Members in all parts of the House will support the motion. This issue is not about one man or the one hon. Member whose case has already been to court. It is, however, about what kind of investigative journalism we want in this country—searching, yes; critical, caustic, aggressive and cynical, maybe; but not illegal. It is about whether this House will be supine when its Members’ phones are hacked, or whether it will take action when the democratic rights of MPs to do their job without illegal let, hindrance or interception has been traduced. We have taken action before as a House; we should take action today.

Summer Adjournment

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a great shame that the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) is not in his place, as I would like to correct something he said earlier. He referred to a much-quoted sentence when he said that this Parliament was the “mother of all Parliaments”. In fact, this was originally said by the Liberal John Bright, but when he said it, he was not referring to this Parliament as being the mother of all Parliaments, but saying that England was the mother of Parliament. He, like many Liberals, was wrong as well, because the longest-standing Parliament was not this country’s, but the Icelandic Althingi, which first sat in 929. We should at times be a bit more careful about our history.

That brings me to the first issue I want to raise, which relates to the pernicious and now-published Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. It is pernicious because, for a start, it shackles together two issues that have no proper right to be in the same Bill. If they have to be in the same Bill, they should be in the other published Bill that provides for fixed-term Parliaments; it would then be a general constitutional reform Bill. Indeed, elements of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill presume that the other Bill is going to be carried, so there is an argument for putting all three issues together, but not just two.

The Bill is also pernicious because it will increase the power of patronage in this House. Cutting the number of seats from 650 to 600 without cutting the number of Ministers will increase the role that patronage plays in this House. I note in passing that the Liberals have decided to add yet more patronage by creating these rather strange Liberal Whips. The tentacles of patronage needed to keep this coalition together are, as I say, pernicious.

The most pernicious element of all relates to the process that the Bill presumes will happen. Accordingly, the Boundary Commissions will draw up reports for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. They will send them to the Secretary of State who will then— I am not joking, but the legislation might be—

“lay…before Parliament…the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect with or without modifications”

to the recommendations. In other words, the Secretary of State can draw up precisely what the constituency boundaries look like and this House will not be able to amend it because it will be an Order in Council. All we could do is vote for or against it. That is indeed pernicious.

The Deputy Prime Minister has referred on television and radio to the coalition introducing the best reforms since the Great Reform Act of 1832. This is not a great reform Bill: it is a great patronage Bill; it is a great gerrymandering Bill; it is a great partisan shenanigans Bill—and it is also, incidentally, the great rotten boroughs for Liberals in Scotland Bill. In case anyone is not certain, I am wholly opposed to it.

The second issue I want to discuss is S4C, although I understand that this may not be a matter of scintillating interest to everyone in the House. We heard over the weekend that the Government are going to cut the funding for S4C by 6% every year for the next four years. This has not, of course, been announced to the House, but I understand that S4C has been told about it. The funding of S4C is laid down in statute. In order to change its funding—I think it would be a big mistake to take £24 million out of the Welsh broadcasting economy—the Government would introduce primary legislation, unless they are doing some kind of dodgy deal in the background which they are not prepared to tell us about in the House.

I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to reply to each of the issues that I am raising, or to ensure that Ministers do so. I believe that, as we move into a fully digital era, the existence of S4C is all the more important for my constituents. It enables them to see Welsh coverage on television, not only in the Welsh language but, increasingly, in the English language.

I also urge the Deputy Leader of the House to consider the issue of the funding of the BBC. Many people in this country believe that the BBC is one of the greatest institutions that Britain has ever given to our society and to the world. We all have our complaints about individual journalists—about their being biased, or not biased—but the honest truth is that around the world, the BBC and the World Service are well respected and admired. Let me say to the Government that anyone in any other country would be astounded at the thought that we would cut the funding of the BBC by any significant amount.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech. I particularly approve of his comments about the BBC. Does he agree that the BBC could provide a service for my constituents in Harrow by investigating the circumstances in which ColArt, which runs a factory in my constituency employing some 200 people, wants to shift manufacturing operations from Wealdstone to France, thus putting at risk the jobs of many of my constituents? Is that not a subject that the BBC could usefully investigate?

[Chris Bryant]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the phenomenal sagacity and dexterity that he has just shown. Obviously there should be at least an investigative programme by the likes of “Panorama”—if it has any time to spare between investigations of the shenanigans in the Liberal party.

The serious point I am making is that cutting the BBC licence fee has absolutely nothing to do with cutting the deficit, and that, through its investment in all the creative industries, the BBC plays a vital role in many other parts of our British national identity.

That brings me to my next point. One of our actions as a Government of which I am particularly proud was our introduction of the artist’s resale right in the United Kingdom, which has benefited 1,827 artists—although it may be a bit more since this morning. Ten million pounds have gone to those artists. It is mostly the smaller names rather than the very famous people who are receiving the money, but an investment is also being made in the important artistic community in this country. The British art market put out a rumour that our action would destroy it, but in fact the market has risen by roughly 23% year on year since 2003. I urge the Government to ensure that the right applies not only to living artists but to the estates and families of artists who have died, because they are often the people who maintain the heritage of those artists.

Finally, I want to raise another issue relating to south Wales. The defence training academy at St Athan will dramatically improve the quality of training that we give our armed forces. It will provide between 5,000 and 6,000 jobs in south Wales, and should therefore be seen not as an optional add-on, but as essential to our defence of the realm.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 26th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I know that a number of hon. Members share the hon. Gentleman’s view. Ironically, perhaps, the concerns about early-day motions are expressed in early-day motion 432, which sets out a similar view to his. The problem is that many of our constituents are led to believe by campaigning organisations that EDMs have an efficacy well beyond what we in the House know to be the case. The matter will have to be considered by the House authorities and Committees, but he makes an important point.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Early-day motions are an important way for the House, and particularly Back Benchers, to show interest, concern and dedication to a particular cause. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to make it more difficult for Members to sign early-day motions—I know that there are difficulties deciding which to sign and which not to sign—but to make it easier. Currently, we can table a question online, but we cannot add our name to an early-day motion online. Surely that facility could be introduced.

[Mr Heath]

In the past financial year, a total of 2,531 EDMs were tabled, with 120,158 names added. Clearly, the obstacles are not insuperable, but the hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which he has raised with me previously and which I have taken up with the House authorities. I hope that we will soon make progress on the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stuart Bell]

That is an interesting point. In 2007 the Procedure Committee said there should be no electronic tabling of EDMs without stronger authentication than that in place for questions.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Why?

[Sir Stuart Bell]

My hon. Friend asks why. The Procedure Committee said there should not be such electronic tabling unless

“significantly stronger authentication than is currently required for parliamentary questions can be guaranteed”.

The Procedure Committee went on to say that it cannot therefore

“recommend the introduction of e-tabling for EDMs.”

I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, and my hon. Friend’s question from a sedentary position.

Information for Backbenchers on Statements

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hollobone]

I am grateful for your ruling, Mr Speaker. Should there be any members of the Press Gallery up there this evening, they should be commended on turning up, although as you know, the reputations of lots of members of the Press Gallery precedes them, whether they are here or not.

If you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, I got stuck in 1947, with the resignation of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, to move on from that, the Library has produced some valuable intelligence on the issue of ministerial statements not being made correctly. I understand that in the 27 years since 1983, there have been 44 incidents on the Floor of the House when the Speaker or a Deputy Speaker has had to make a ruling about the pre-release of information. Indeed, I fully expect the total figure to be somewhat higher. We are therefore talking about a regular occurrence, and it is clearly difficult for any Government, of whatever colour, to get things right. That is why we now have an opportunity, with this new politics, to try to ensure that we have a protocol in place that everyone can understand and which it is far more difficult to fall foul of.

Even though the Backbench Business Committee is a new innovation, the issue of ministerial statements going wrong has been discussed on the Floor of the House and by Select Committees before. In February 2001, the Public Administration Committee conducted an inquiry into the ministerial code. Its findings make for interesting reading, so perhaps I could indulge the House for a moment by reading them:

“There is one respect in which the accountability requirements of Ministers in relation to Parliament have been weakened over the lifetime of the Ministerial Code. This concerns policy announcements to Parliament. The 1949 version of the Code provided that: ‘When Parliament is in session, important announcements of Government policy should be made, in the first instance, in Parliament.’ However, in…1997…the formulation has become: ‘When Parliament is in session, Ministers will want to bear in mind the desire of Parliament that the most important announcements of Government policy should be made, in the first instance, to Parliament.’ This represents a reduction in parliamentary accountability. We recommend that when the Ministerial Code is next revised the spirit of the original wording should be restored in respect of announcements of important Government policy.”

Basically, the Government of the day, having been ticked off, accepted that recommendation. However, my contention—and that of the Backbench Business Committee—is that despite being corrected by the Public Administration Committee in 2001, the procedure is still not clear enough to the Government of the day.

I have to say that I am extremely disappointed that the new coalition Government have got off to a bad start on the release of policy information to this House—I should also say that I would have said that whichever Government were now in power. The coalition Government got off to a bad start with the Queen’s Speech, which is an extremely poor place to get off to a bad start. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised the matter in the House on a point of order on 25 May, when he said to you, Mr Speaker:

“You rightly used to excoriate Labour Ministers if ever we made announcements before making them to this House, so will you make sure that that lot over there do not announce things to the press—as they have done, day in, day out over the past 10 days—without first bringing them before this House?”

You, Sir, then said:

“This gives me the opportunity to say at the start of this new Parliament that I shall continue to expect, as I said two days after first being elected Speaker last June, that ‘Ministers ought to make key statements to the House before they are made elsewhere’… If they do otherwise, I—and, I am sure, the House—will expect to hear explanations and apologies as necessary.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2010; Vol. 510, c. 53.]

You have been as good as your word, Mr Speaker. The Backbench Business Committee—and, I hope, the whole House tonight—will praise you for that, because you insisted that Ministers who have not complied come to the Chamber to apologise to the House. [Interruption.] Yes, and rightly so. Why? Because we are, rightly or wrongly, elected by our constituents to be their representatives in this national Parliament; and if a Minister is deliberately or inadvertently releasing information before telling the people’s representatives, they should be called to this House to apologise. To the credit of the Ministers involved, even though they made a mistake with the pre-release of information, they have had the good grace to come here and apologise—and I now make a partisan point—unlike Ministers in the last Government, who never did so.

It is wholly appropriate for the Opposition of the day to hold Ministers to account for the release of information. That is part of the job of Opposition. However, that is also the job of all Back Benchers, whatever party we represent, and it is no use Government Members not being prepared to criticise Government Ministers because we are supposed to be on the same side. We have to think wider than that if we are to fulfil our proper roles as Back Benchers. We must have the guts to stand up and say to Ministers on our own side, if necessary, that this is not right and not the way to treat the House of Commons of the UK. We should encourage Ministers to take a professional pride in releasing information only to this House in the first instance.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very sensible speech, and I look forward to his promotion to the Conservative Front Bench in the very near future. Is not the problem the fact that there is not really any sanction? The worst possible sanction is that Mr Speaker says, “You have got to come and make an apology”, at the end of which not much happens. Would it not be better if we had a proper system of sanctions so that Ministers could, if they broke this code, be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges?

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent contribution, and I hope the Procedure Committee will take it into account. I am sure he would want to put the point that he just raised to that Committee.

Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure that it is fair to describe it as a mix-up. The Deputy Prime Minister has been giving evidence all morning to a Select Committee, and I am sure that there was an opportunity to raise this issue. When the AV and boundaries legislation comes before the House, there will be ample opportunity to explore these issues in more depth.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Government have said that they want to raise 20% of the money to cut the deficit from tax rises and 80% from budget cuts. The Leader of the House has announced that on Monday at 10 pm without any debate we will agree all outstanding estimates, which is how we decide how much money we will give to each Department. If four times as much money is to come from cuts as from tax rises, will he ensure that we have four times as much time to debate those cuts, and on amendable motions? The experience of the last two weeks has shown that when cuts are pushed through with more haste than is strictly speaking necessary, the House does not carry the nation with it. Also, which estimates are yet outstanding and to be agreed on Monday?

[Sir George Young]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at Standing Order No. 55, he will see that that is the procedure under which we deal with all outstanding estimates. I agree entirely that the House should have adequate opportunity to question the Government on spending decisions. We have the Treasury Committee, the departmental Select Committees and debates on the Budget. We may also have debates on any public expenditure decisions that are taken. If the hon. Gentleman has better ways to hold the Government to account on financial measures, I would be interested to hear from him. In the past, we may not have spent enough time looking at such issues; perhaps we should refocus on them

Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am sorry to have to give the same answer as I gave a few moments ago. I cannot find time for an urgent debate on that subject. I have outlined the debates that are likely to take place between now and the end of the month. Again, I have to say that the reason for the announcement was the over-commitment of the outgoing Government of funds and the absence of the cover necessary in Departments to meet those commitments.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I have been saving him up—Mr Chris Bryant.

[Chris Bryant]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for saving me up.

In answer to the splendid and hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), who frankly should have been on the Government Front Bench, the Leader of the House got a bit ahead of himself. He said that we were about to have weeks of debating a constitutional reform Bill, but actually we have not yet been told whether there will be one Bill or two. We have not even been told when the First Reading will be, let alone Second Reading or any other stages. The Bill has not been published yet. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to tell the House when the Bill is to be published, in advance of its being published, and that it will not be on the last day before the recess?

[Sir George Young]

I am not getting ahead of myself at all. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister on Monday, he would have heard clearly outlined the legislation that would be introduced on constitutional issues. There will be a Bill on the alternative vote system and boundaries, and there will be a Bill on fixed-term Parliaments. That is likely to take some time for us to discuss and there will be opportunities for the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor to raise the issues that concern them on the Floor of the House.

Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman has raised the important issue of the barbaric treatment of a number of prisoners in Iran. Foreign Office questions will take place on 6 July; alternatively, he may wish to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall, where the matter could be dealt with at greater length.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on ministerial statements, or at least a statement on statements? The right hon. Gentleman has suggested to us that it is fine for Ministers to use written ministerial statements even to deal with such highly controversial issues as retirement and the closure of magistrates courts in areas throughout the country, including Llwynypia in my constituency. He has just said that there will be a statement on something next week. Would it not have been better to include that in his opening announcement? Would it not be better for him to say that he knows that there will be a statement next week, so that it will be easier for us to scrutinise the Government?

[Sir George Young]

The business statement does not normally include written statements. We can give prior notice of written ministerial statements, and I shall see whether that could be done in the instance that the hon. Gentleman has cited. However, we have not deviated from the policy on written ministerial statements that was adopted by the last Government, of whom he was a distinguished member.