Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s possibly full business timetable.

Yesterday we marked the end of an era with the funeral of Margaret Thatcher and our thoughts are with those who knew and loved her. I rarely agreed with her, but she did break the existing political and economic consensus and I think it is time that we did so again.

We are now entering the final hectic days of this parliamentary Session—if necessary. Next Wednesday it will be five weeks since the Prime Minister was last held to account in this House. Given the likely timing of Prorogation and the state opening on 8 May, it is possible that he will have to be answerable here again only twice before June. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is a completely unacceptable state of affairs? What will he do to ensure that this House stops conveniently going into recess on Tuesdays, thereby letting the Prime Minister off the PMQ hook?

On Tuesday the Communities and Local Government Secretary got himself into a right old pickle with his chaotic plans for a free market free-for-all in conservatory construction. With Labour, Liberal Democrats and Tories uniting against him, he was forced to hint at an unspecified concession, but in the damning words of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), his colleague around the Cabinet table for two years,

“we will not believe what”

the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government says

“until we see the proposals in black and white.”—[Official Report, 16 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 196.]

Will the Leader of the House clarify what this mysterious concession might be, or cannot this incompetent Government even organise a concession in a conservatory?

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

George will like that.

[Ms Eagle]

I suspect that the Patronage Secretary has got a few conservatories of his own.

For 60 years, the Agricultural Wages Board has protected vulnerable rural workers from exploitation at the hands of rich landowners, but on Tuesday, without so much as a hint of debate or a vote on the Floor of the House, the Government abolished it. This transfers £240 million from workers in some of the toughest and lowest-paid jobs in rural England directly into the back pockets of their employers. It is a disgrace that such a crucial protection can be removed without so much as a vote or even debate in the democratically elected House. It will take our Opposition day debate for the arguments to be heard, but rural workers protections have already been destroyed. It is clear from the parliamentary timetable that the Government could have made time for the issue to be debated properly. Anyone would think that the Prime Minister was trying to avoid business running on until Wednesdays.

In 28 of the 31 weeks that the Health Secretary has been in the job, England’s major accident and emergency units have missed the target for treating patients within four hours, but at the same time he has handed £2.2 billion of NHS funds back to the Treasury. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement on how Ministers will bring all accident and emergency departments in England back up to the national standards they set? Despite being forced to backtrack once already, the Health Secretary persists with his damaging section 75 regulations, which will effectively privatise the NHS by the back door. The Lords will debate them next Wednesday, so will the Leader of the House tell us when we will debate them in the Commons?

Following the Budget, the International Monetary Fund this week again slashed the UK growth forecast and agreed with us that the Chancellor needs to change course. A year ago, it predicted growth of 2%, but that has now dropped to just 0.7%. Unemployment is rising, real wages are falling and borrowing is shooting through the roof, but the Chancellor’s only growth strategy seems to be to destroy rights at work. When will he get real and admit that his plan is just not working? Our downgraded Chancellor has been busy trying to be a man of the people, attempting to distract attention from his huge tax cut for millionaires by dropping his aitches in a speech at Morrisons—and he was not even very good at that. With a failing economic strategy, a faltering legislative programme and a Government adrift, will the Leader of the House tell the Chancellor that we need a change of course, not a change of accent?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I am in favour of paying tribute to Mrs Thatcher in very many ways, but that is probably not one of them.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is naughty because he knows perfectly well that this is not the mother of Parliaments. He is, however, right on one point: because of the Government’s jiggery-pokery, the Prime Minister will answer Prime Minister’s questions only four times in 12 weeks. Even worse, the Chancellor will probably not answer Treasury questions until three whole months have passed since the Budget. The first Treasury questions is likely to be on 18 or 25 June. We could solve all that if the Government fulfilled their promise to bring in a House business committee by the third year of this Parliament. We were generous and allowed that not to be by the beginning of the third year—that is what we all thought the logic meant—but we are now at the end of the third year. I presume that we could use the week after next just to introduce that legislation.

[Mr Lansley]

As far as I could see, the House was happy when I published a calendar for the year ahead last October. Most of the issues the hon. Gentleman raises are a simple consequence of that calendar. In so far as they are not, they appear to be the consequence of his engaging in speculation about the date of Prorogation. The date of Prorogation, of course, has not been set.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme) ((No. 3)

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a great delight to follow the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), not least because I want to take him up on something that he said the other day and has said again today. He uses the phrase, “the mother of Parliaments”, as though this Parliament is the mother of Parliaments. That is completely and utterly incorrect. John Bright referred to England as being the mother of Parliaments, and his point was to criticise England because it had not yet managed to bring the full franchise to all working men; he was not quite so enlightened as to include women at that time. I know that the hon. Gentleman knows this to be the case because he told me so in the gym the other day, so I hope he will stop misleading the House. [Interruption.] It is not inadvertent; it is deliberate, and I know it is, but I say it in a kindly way.

This has been a very odd day. I have scoured the history books and I cannot find an example of Standing Order No. 24 being used by the Prime Minister to hold himself to account. It was a delight to see him do so, but slightly odd.

The Leader of the House said that he would always, or nearly always, try to provide two days on Report—although we have not ended up with that—and boasted about the fact that there have been 14 such occasions so far. I agree that, broadly speaking, that is a good principle. It may be important to have more than one day’s debate on a long and contentious Bill, particularly a Bill such as this, where the Government are rewriting large chunks of it, or on a Christmas tree Bill that has baubles, tinsel and fairies on top. However, if there are statements or other business, that trammels up the debate on Report. All too often, Whips will try to make sure that certain matters are not reached.

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Wellingborough is saying, but my complaint is that it is a bit rich for the Government to complain, as they have been doing in the media and in the House today, that Members are trying to hijack other Bills. Perhaps the Leader of the House should timetable in the hijacking of Bills between now and the general election, because we have every intention of hijacking as many as possible in order to make sure that we get better legislation. That is what the whole process is about. If we can persuade the Liberal Democrats, as well as the minor parties, to join us on more occasions than thus far, we hope that we will manage to get better legislation.

Part of the problem is that last week one programme motion was tabled within 10 minutes of the close of play. Such practice makes it impossible for ordinary hon. Members to know what the next day will hold and when we will discuss individual Bills. If the whole idea of programme motions is that they are for the convenience of the House, it is for the multiple inconvenience of the House if they are tabled at the very last minute, especially when, as I understand it, the Government did not even understand last week that such a motion is amendable or that there is no way that the Opposition or any other Member can seek to amend it until it has been tabled. That happened at the very last minute last Tuesday night and last Thursday night, so Mr Speaker was left with a very difficult decision on whether it was right to allow the House to proceed on the basis of manuscript amendments such as those that have been tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough or other manuscript amendments that have even been tabled by the Government. That is a shabby way of doing business. It brings this House into disrepute when people cannot make proper arrangements.

Last Thursday the Government were not even aware that, if they wanted to discuss certain things relating to Leveson, they had to table a motion under Standing Order No. 75. That motion was eventually tabled five minutes before the close of play on Thursday, but it has not been moved. We have all ended up looking like we are living in cloud cuckoo land.

The Leader of the House also said last week that he would table amendments when the discussions had concluded. I asked him what he meant by “concluded” and he rolled his eyes and pulled the slightly grumpy, Deputy Dawg face that he is pulling now. The papal conclave ended and amendments were tabled a long time afterwards. Incidentally, the one good thing about this papal conclave is that at least a woman—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the deputy leader of the Labour party—was allowed to be on it.

A lot of important issues need to be considered with regard to extradition. The hon. Member for Wellingborough is right that under the current programme motion we are unlikely to reach the amendment tabled in his name and the names of, I think, 95 other Members, most but not all of whom are Conservative.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that today has been an odd day, but it has been extremely beneficial to discuss all the issues relating to Leveson. However, the issues of extradition and the European arrest warrant are of huge concern to the people of this country. I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, through this intervention, that, given the many cases when the United States in particular has sought the extradition of people from this country and raised huge concern among the British people, debate on the issue should not be truncated. The House should be given more time to debate it.

[Chris Bryant]

Indeed. I commend those who brought issues of extradition to the House’s attention on the basis of Back-Bench motions. However, given that it is now exactly a year since this House unanimously agreed a motion on the visas of those involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky, we now know that a motion of the House means absolutely nothing unless it is part of the legislative process.

The hon. Gentleman is right. I would like to be able to debate extradition and the European arrest warrant and we have tabled an amendment in the names of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others. Indeed, many people will be looking to this House to have a proper debate on the provisions that will end the right to appeal for those applying for a visitor visa. The hon. Gentleman and I may take a different view on that, but the Government have ordered the business in this way when they could easily have said last Thursday that they would not debate the Bill today, but would do so tomorrow, Wednesday or Thursday. That would have made it perfectly possible to have a debate on Leveson and then on something else, which would have been a much better way of proceeding.

I am afraid that there is not much point in supporting the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough. Frankly, I hope he will withdraw them, because a vote would waste another 16 minutes when we could be getting on with business. I say to the Leader of the House that it is a shame that we are proceeding in this way.

Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The shadow Leader says that it was a two-year Session, so I am happy to be able to tell her that in this Session, which is not a two-year Session, we have thus far published 10 Bills in draft, and I am hopeful that before the Session is ended, we will match the record of the previous Session.

The shadow Leader of the House asked me about my colleagues at DEFRA. As she will know—there was an equine theme to her questions—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Come on—get a move on. If not a gallop, at least a canter.—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

There should be no chuntering from a sedentary position. Less of the wit or attempted wit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

Of course my hon. Friend understands that we always endeavour to keep the House fully informed of announcements of Government policy, through the means of statements, and to seek not to impede the business of the House. That always involves a balance, and we will endeavour to strike it well. I understand his point that many Members, understandably, feel strongly about what Robert Francis had to say in his report. I feel strongly about it, because it demonstrates that appointing Robert Francis to undertake that public inquiry was absolutely the right thing to do. It also points clearly to the kind of changes in culture and behaviour that the NHS needs now and has needed for a long time. This is not about the structures, because in the course of the past two and half years we in this House have given the NHS the structures it needs. In the introduction to his report, Robert Francis makes it clear that we now need to achieve those culture changes within the structure of the new reforms and they can be achieved in that way.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Would it not be a really sneaky trick for the House not to sit on the Wednesday after the Budget? It would mean that the Prime Minister would not be able to answer in relation to the Budget for four full weeks, by which time, if last year’s Budget is anything to go by, nearly every element of it will have been undone. The Prime Minister would then have to do a massive mea culpa and apologise to everybody for having misled them all the way along for four weeks. Would it not be better to sit on the Wednesday or for the Prime Minister to lead the debate on the second day?

[Mr Lansley]

I published the calendar for the House last October. It set out very clearly, to correct what I said earlier, that Tuesday 26 March was to be the day on which the House would rise. It is perfectly possible for the business of the House to be accommodated by that date, but we must sit on the Friday for that to happen.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members know perfectly well that if they had supported a programme motion on House of Lords reform, we would have been able to reform the House of Lords and reduce the number of Members in the Lords. But no, they did not do that.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Lansley]

I always regret it, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

So charmingly done. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to cut the cost of politics, yet the average cost of a completely unelected new peer is £150,000 a year. How many extra peers will he be appointing before the next general election? We have already seen the fastest appointment of peers of any Government in history.

[Mr Lansley]

We always made it clear on the Government Benches that if the House of Lords remained unreformed it would be necessary to enable it to better reflect the character of the outcome of the preceding general election. I will not reiterate the point I made to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), but if the Opposition had supported House of Lords reform we would have been able to deal with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware, because he sat through my superb speech during the debate on the House of Lords Reform Bill, that I made a point in that debate about the importance of function, of looking at the powers of the second Chamber and of convention. He will recall that, although the Second Reading was voted for by a huge majority, it was the Government who chose to drop the Bill from the legislative timetable. That was their decision, and it is the Government whom the hon. Gentleman should be lobbying.

[Chris Bryant]

Is it not a generally accepted principle that the House of Lords has a special relationship in that it is a guardian of the constitution in a way that those who are elected might sometimes not be?

[Sadiq Khan]

Absolutely. I have to say to those who have a grievance against conventions or against House of Lords reform that I am afraid the ship has sailed. They had their opportunity, but it passed them by.

The amendments have been made in addition to the improvements made here in the Commons during the progress of the Bill. We managed to secure a commitment that an annual canvass would still take place in 2014, that the option of a rolling opt-out was removed and that a civil penalty would be created for those who refused to respond when requested to register to vote. The Bill still left this House with serious problems, however, which is why we voted against it on Third Reading when it was last before us.

I would like to use this opportunity to place on record our appreciation of those who tabled the amendments in group 2: Lord Hart of Chilton, Lord Rennard, Lord Wigley and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. This amendment received support from across the other place, and a Labour peer, a Liberal Democrat peer, a Plaid Cymru peer and a Cross Bencher tabled it. It was passed by a majority of 69. We welcome the amendments made to the Bill in the other place. We shall not, therefore, be supporting the motion before us today to disagree with the Lords in their amendments.

The effect of the amendment we are debating will be to postpone the review of parliamentary boundaries by one electoral cycle.

Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her comments, and particularly for her welcome for the written ministerial statement on public reading stages. I also share her welcome for the Backbench Business Committee’s decision to timetable a debate on Holocaust memorial day. I am a supporter of the Holocaust Educational Trust and a member of its council, and I have been with students to Auschwitz-Birkenau, as I know many Members have done. Holocaust memorial day is an occasion on which we can commemorate and understand the nature of that horror. It helps us to understand the applications of that genocide to the issues of today, and the horrors that man unfortunately still tends to visit on other members of mankind.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about Mali. She will recall that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), made a statement on that matter earlier in the week. I know that my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence will ensure that the House is updated on that issue, and, when it is appropriate to do so, on the events in Algeria. The Government condemn what has happened there. We are acting in concert with our allies in response. We send our condolences to the families of this and other countries’ nationals who have been killed and captured, but we will not rest from trying to recover those who have been kidnapped.

The hon. Lady asked about the high street, and she will recall the Portas review. The Government are supporting regeneration in the high street, but she and the House must understand completely that the Government cannot stand in the way of change in the economy—and changes are taking place, which will impact on high-street retailers. Some high-street retailers will succeed and prosper; others unfortunately will not. One of the key things that this Government have set out to do is always to try to ensure that we give the private sector an opportunity to grow. The evidence for that—the hon. Lady neglected to put it before the House—is the creation of more than 1 million jobs in the private sector since the general election. That is precisely what this Government are doing.

I was amused, but I was not much questioned by the shadow Leader of the House on some other issues. A former civil servant myself, I have seen press reports suggesting that the Prime Minister referred to “Yes Minister” as a documentary, but I am not aware that he did; I think I did in the House.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

A leadership bid!

[Mr Lansley]

I am pretty sure that is not going to happen. For the purposes of “Yes Minister”, I have been both Bernard and Jim Hacker. What I can say with great confidence—I know it is true of this coalition Government—is that as my esteemed colleague Lord Fowler once said, “Ministers decide.” That is true; Ministers do decide. We take the decisions and we take the responsibility.

Finally, I do not want to chide the shadow Leader of the House too much, but once again she and her colleagues have not given notice to the House today of what the business might be for the Opposition day next Wednesday. I wonder whether they lack options. If they feel that they do, let me suggest gently, given that the hon. Lady was talking about and asking questions about Europe, that the Opposition might like to have a debate on Europe. Then we might discover the Labour party’s policy on Europe. As far as I can see, the Leader of the Opposition is willing to go on the radio and say that there are areas in which Britain needs powers back, but not to endorse the idea of a negotiation, the purpose of which is to achieve that. I thus have no idea what the Labour party’s approach might be.

Following the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) saying in a debate on the welfare benefits uprating that he was

“happy to debate priorities within”—[Official Report, 8 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 217]—

the spending envelope, perhaps we could have a debate on that so that we can hear the Labour party’s proposals. Otherwise, we could have a debate on the elasticity of money supply, since the Labour party has made proposals for additional taxes, which would raise something over £2 billion, but appears to believe that that money is capable of matching spending pledges of more than £30 billion. Elasticity of money supply seems to be the Labour party’s approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I understand very well the point my hon. Friend is making. The Government have concluded a major review of the rules and procedures on charging visitors for NHS care. It is important that we understand that those who are here, on whatever basis, have access to emergency care, but that there are rules about those who have access to non-emergency care or continuing care beyond primary care. I hope that Health Ministers will be able to make an announcement about the results of that review soon.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I do not want just a statement on Europe; I want a full debate on Europe in Government time. In the old days, we used to have four debates a year before European Councils and four statements after European Councils so that the Government’s policy could be scrutinised by the House. I know that they were pretty tedious affairs, with single transferable speeches delivered time after time, not least by myself. It would be good if we could have a bell fitted behind the Speaker’s Chair, so that every time the word “Europe” is mentioned all Pavlov’s dogs on the Government Benches could start slobbering—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

There is nothing disorderly about that remark, but I leave Members to make their own assessments on the question of taste.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If I recall correctly, there was very positive coverage of at least one hotel in Llandudno earlier this week—

[Chris Bryant]

Over here.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I was referring specifically to Llandudno in my hon. Friend’s constituency for a second. I sometimes wonder, Mr Speaker, whether the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) wants to be in charge of the order of the House. It seems rather impertinent, does it not? If I were disorderly, you would call me to book. I do not need the hon. Gentleman for that to happen.

I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) some reassurance. On 28 November the Government launched a consultation on whether to reduce the burdens of licensing on businesses that sell alcohol only as a small part of a wider service. That includes guest houses or bed-and-breakfast accommodation that wish to provide alcohol to guests as part of an evening meal. That consultation can be found on the Home Office website. I encourage him and all interested parties to respond before the closing date of 6 February.

Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, all insolvencies involve a degree of loss, or are very likely to do so. He and other hon. Members have been pursuing prompt payment, which he knows is very important to SMEs. They should not be exposed to financing others because payments are not made on time. He will know that before Christmas we announced a review of insolvency practitioner fees, which will look to establish whether further changes are needed to ensure creditors have confidence that those fees are fair and commensurate with work done. He might also bear it in mind that the insolvency red tape challenge is in progress, which might offer another opportunity to raise this issue.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Some of us who support marriage equality none the less want to ensure that the House does a good, proper and thorough job of scrutinising the legislation when it is presented. It might be difficult for the Government to put together a Committee that is fully representative of Conservative Back Benchers. Would it not be a good idea, therefore, to make sure that the Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House, or, even better, to give a few legislative days to the Backbench Business Committee, so that it could decide, almost as if it was private Members’ legislation, how to proceed?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard my reply to previous questions. We will ensure proper scrutiny of our Bills.

Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

Time does not permit me to enter into a debate about the health effects of wind turbines, but I know that there are various arguments, and I have read some of the competing literature, as it were. I will of course draw the hon. Gentleman’s remarks to the attention of my colleagues in the Department for Energy, and will ask them to respond.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

When businesses sacked staff by text message, that was rightly condemned throughout the country. People said that it was cowardly and despicable. When, a few years ago, Burberry announced the closure of its factory in Treorchy at the beginning of December, that was condemned as well, on the grounds that it was the wrong time of the year to do such a thing. Today, the Government have done both those things together: they have announced by e-mail that a lot of people working in Remploy factories are to lose their jobs, and they have done it in the run-up to Christmas.

In a way, I almost do not want the Leader of the House to respond to what I have said, but I do want him to think about this. Please, please may we have an oral statement on Monday? The people who work for Remploy are very vulnerable and need to hear the arguments in full from a Minister in the House, and we need to be able to ask questions about the specific situation in all our many constituencies.

Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say. I remind him that Defence Ministers will be here for questions on Monday. He may find that to be the earliest, and therefore most appropriate, opportunity to raise the matter.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am delighted that the Prime Minister is going to be here on Monday because I have a question that I would like to ask him; with any luck I will manage to catch your eye, Mr Speaker.

May I ask the Leader of the House about the House business committee? The coalition agreement guarantees that that will be in place by the third year of the coalition Government. Many of us thought that meant by the beginning of the third year, but there are now only 18 Thursdays before the end of the third year. Will the Leader of the House scotch rumours, multiplying by the day, that he is trying to prevent the committee from coming into being?

[Mr Lansley]

I will simply repeat what I said, I think, at business questions last time around. It is a matter of weeks since I took up this post and I am absolutely clear about what the coalition programme has said about the introduction of a House business committee in 2013. There are no grounds for any rumours, but I will make it clear that there have already been important developments, not least the Backbench Business Committee, which is enabling the House to exercise more control over business; that is a very positive step, and my intention is to understand how that is being developed and ensure that we can develop it further.

Parliamentary Language

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I do not think that you say that at the beginning of every debate, so I feel a little admonished already.

“Erskine May”, the volume that governs how we behave in Parliament and dictates many of the rules that are not written up in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, must be one of the most regularly ignored books in the history of English literature. Members will perhaps be surprised to know that it says:

“All Members should maintain silence.”

I do not know how often there is silence in the Chamber when somebody else is speaking. It is pretty rare, although on occasion the mood of the House can change on a sixpence. “Erskine May” also says that

“Members must not read any book, newspaper or letter.”

I have often seen Members signing Christmas cards in the House of Commons while a debate is going on, so I gently suggest that “Erskine May” is often ignored. I suspect that one of the reasons is that it is not generally available to the public—it costs £260 to buy. I believe that it should be available online and I cannot see any earthly reason why it should not be. All the Standing Orders of the House and everything else that dictates the way that we do our business are available online.

I know that some members of the public might think that there was a golden age when all MPs sat in the House of Commons and listened to one another carefully and attentively, only ever voting according to their consciences and not according to any party Whip, and that there was never any unruliness. In fact, the modern era has probably been one of the most ruly in parliamentary democracy.

On 24 July 1911, Tory MPs completely and utterly refused to allow the Prime Minister—Mr Asquith—to speak for the best part of 20 minutes by literally shouting at him at a very important point in his attempt to resolve a row between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Then, when F. E. Smith was going to speak on behalf of the Conservatives, the Liberals, who believed that Smith had orchestrated the shouting at Mr Asquith, all shouted at him until the Speaker had to suspend the sitting before eventually adjourning it for the rest of the day. It is the only time that I have found that the Prime Minister was literally unable to get a single sentence out and on to the record; I suppose that is what happens when there is a Chamber dominated by Conservatives and Liberals.

In 1920, things got even worse. On 22 November that year, a Conservative, John Elsdale Molson, attacked an Irish nationalist, Joseph Devlin, when Devlin raised the matter of the Croke Park massacre, which had happened the day before. Indeed, things got so bad that the Conservative dragged the Irish nationalist over the top of the Bench and started pummelling him on the Floor. A Liberal actually shouted out, “Kill him,” and obviously the sitting had to be suspended.

Likewise, on 11 April 1923 the Speaker suspended the sitting because the Government had lost a vote the day before and Labour MPs were insisting that they should therefore change their policy on ex-servicemen. At that point, Robert Murray, a Conservative politician, and Walter Guinness, a Labour politician, ended up in a fist-fight and the rest of the day’s business was lost.

I mention all those incidents because people sometimes have this glorious image of a perfect, pacific past in the House of Commons. Sometimes we romanticise the past too much and I would argue that “Erskine May” has also entrenched some of the archaisms of the past that are no longer necessary.

Personally, I find the whole business of calling somebody an “hon. Friend”, a “right hon. Friend” or an “hon. Member” rather unnecessary. I do not know why; it just makes us seem as if we are hung up on titles. Ordinary members of the public have no idea what the difference is between an “hon. Member” and a “right hon. Member”—indeed, often Members themselves do not know the difference. It just seems so ludicrous when one Member has referred to another Member as “honourable” and then someone else pipes up and says, “Oh no, he’s right honourable.” I just think, “Honestly, have we not got something better to obsess about than our own status?”

Similarly, it is a particular irony that we always refer to one another by our constituencies, not least because we can rarely remember each other’s constituency names. So we will go, “The hon. Member for…somewhere down in the south-west,” or something like that, and then somebody will shout out the constituency name and it gets corrected and tidied up by Hansard. The irony of it all is that Hansard will actually then put the name of the Member.

It is bizarre that we play this game of having to refer to one another by our constituencies rather than our names. I do not think that the fact that people in the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament call one another by their names means they are any less courteous to one another; indeed, they might actually be a little more courteous.

There are also a lot of inconsistencies about how the Chair sometimes rules in relation to specific comments that are meant to involve unparliamentary language. For instance, Eric Forth regularly got away with using the term “PMPs”. When he was shadow Leader of the House, he always referred to “PMPs” as opposed to “PMQs”, with “PMPs” meaning “Prime Minister’s porkies”. If that was not accusing the Prime Minister of lying, I do not know what would have been.

That was quite a direct accusation of dishonesty, yet Jacob Rees-Mogg—sorry, I am not allowed to call him that; I must call him “the hon. Member for somewhere or other down in the south-west”—did not get into trouble for using the word “flipping”, but Sally Keeble got into considerable trouble for using a word that begins and ends with the same letters as “flipping” but is slightly different in the middle, and that was because it was used in a quotation.

Members are not allowed to use quotations. It says quite clearly in “Erskine May” that Members are not allowed to use a quotation at all, at any point. No extracts from books, magazines or newspapers can be used, and yet we do it regularly—in fact, we do it all the time. On occasions in 2002, the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions used quotations as a means of accusing Stephen Byers of lying, but he was not reprimanded by the Chair for doing so, even though it is absolutely clear in “Erskine May” that a Member is not allowed to use the fact that they are quoting somebody else as a means of passing off an imputation of dishonesty against another Member.

I cannot remember Tom Watson’s constituency, but it is somewhere in the midlands—West Bromwich east, north, south or west. He was told off for using the word “pipsqueak” on 8 July 2010, yet the words “stoolpigeon”, “hooligan”, “blackguard” and “idiot” have all been used at various times by hon. Members and they have never been told off for using them. So I simply say that it is time for a greater degree of consistency about what we consider parliamentary and unparliamentary language. Indeed, I would say that it is time for a full redraft of “Erskine May”.

In particular, Members may not know that they are not allowed to be ironical in a debate in the House of Commons. It was a ruling of the Speaker on 25 August 1860, when he spoke to a Member:

“I should have informed him that to discuss any matter in the House in an ironical sense is unparliamentary and out of order.”—[Official Report, 25 August 1860; Vol. 160, c. 1827.]

When I have heard people make ironical comments in the House, I have often wondered whether those comments should be put in italics in Hansard, so that everybody catches the drift of what the person was really saying; sometimes it looks as if they are saying exactly the opposite of what they really mean. However, the ruling is still in “Erskine May” as a result of that decision in 1860.

I have already referred to the fact that “Erskine May” says that extracts from newspapers or books, and paraphrases of or quotations from speeches and so on, are not admissible. I think that that ruling is out of date and it is

“more honoured in the breach than the observance”.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

I am sorry to have to use the term “my hon. Friend”; in fact, I will just say “my Friend.” Does my Friend agree that some things cannot be put in “Erskine May” and that there should be some guidelines that just mean that we lead by example? For instance, when I have been going round the country asking people why they hate politicians, they say that one of the primary reasons is that they do not think that we answer questions put to us. We may think that senior politicians might lead the way on that issue, but the Prime Minister demonstrated the opposite today in an answer—or non-answer—to the question that my Friend put. That is the kind of thing that infuriates voters.

[Chris Bryant]

I will come later to what the Prime Minister said this afternoon, but to be honest I think that it was pretty scandalous. The whole point of Parliament is that Members are sent here on behalf of their constituents to be able to hold the Government to account, and that must surely require the Government to answer questions. Indeed, the ministerial code of conduct, ironically enough, was written by the Prime Minister in May 2010. It says absolutely categorically:

“It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament”.

It also says:

“Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest”.

People might think that that is just the ministerial code of conduct, and that the Prime Minister wrote it so he can ignore it. However, it is also a motion of this House —it was a resolution of this House carried on 19 March 1997. I cannot understand, and I do not think that our constituents will understand, why the Prime Minister should think himself able to declare that he will not answer a particular question from somebody, apparently just because he does not like them.

I happen to think that the Prime Minister did that because he had something to hide. He made it pretty clear that he chose not to deny the fact that there are additional e-mails between him and Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, of a salacious nature and embarrassing to him, which he refuses to publish. He could have chosen to deny that today. It seems absolutely clear to me that there is precisely such a stash, and he should, in the interests of democracy—and, frankly, in the interests of his reputation—publish them as soon as possible.

Incidentally, the Prime Minister said earlier this year that he was not going to reply to any of my questions, then he started replying to some of them and now he has gone back to not replying. I presume that today’s not-replying answer was precisely because I had asked a question that embarrassed him and because he had something to hide.

“Erskine May” also says that we are not allowed to ask certain kinds of questions:

“Questions which seek an expression of opinion, or which contain arguments, expressions of opinion, inferences or imputations, unnecessary epithets, or rhetorical, controversial, ironical or offensive expressions are not in order.”

That would rule out pretty much every single parliamentary question I have ever heard, certainly those on the Floor of the House; perhaps written questions are rather different. This seems to be yet another example of where we must consider changing how we write our rules.

Some of the issues are very specific, and I want to refer to how “Erskine May” says we are allowed to refer to other Members of Parliament, Members of the House of Lords, judges, governors-general of other territories, the Queen, the heir to the throne and members of the royal family.

It is absolutely right and proper that we should not seek to bring members of the royal family into our debates, and not seek to pray in aid a member of the royal family to try, in some way or another, to influence a debate—by saying, for example, “Princess Anne agrees with me” or “Prince Andrew disagrees with me.” However, extending that to mean that we cannot say a word about a member of the royal family is inappropriate, because we can write about them in newspapers. As Members of Parliament, we can say things on television, and in debates on “Question Time” or “Any Questions?” so not to be able to say the same things in Parliament, which is meant to be the fundamental place of debate in our society, seems misguided and wrong. It relies on an understanding from the late 17th century, which is archaic.

“Erskine May” also states, incidentally, that we are not even allowed to ask a question about ecclesiastical patronage. When the Prime Minister, in the next few days, gets two names suggested to him as next Archbishop of Canterbury, we will not be allowed to ask him which name he put forward to the Queen for appointment. One of the problems with the Church of England today is that the whole process of appointing bishops and archbishops is far too clouded in secrecy. It would be far better to have an open and transparent system, as we have for any other Government appointment. Why can we not ask questions about how patronage is exercised?

Similarly, and this strikes me as very strange, we are not allowed to ask questions about how the Prime Minister exercises his patronage in the granting of honours. That is particularly bizarre, because in 1922 a Conservative Member, Colonel John Gretton—as I am sure you know, Mrs Riordan, he won two golds in the 1900 Olympics—wanted to ask Lloyd George if he could give a definite assurance

“that no money or other consideration of money value has been paid, or passed either directly or indirectly, in connection with any of the honours recommended by the Prime Minister in announcing the list of honours on the 3rd of June this year.”—[Official Report, 27 June 1922; Vol. 155, c. 1842.]

The Speaker refused to allow him to ask the question, but it seems to me absolutely quintessentially important that we should know whether money has been handed over to a political party or an individual for the granting of an honour. The Speaker relied on the answer that had been given by his predecessor, Speaker Lowther, on 21 July 1907, when another MP, Hugh Lea, wanted to ask Campbell-Bannerman, another Liberal Prime Minister, about a knighthood he had given to Sir James Brown Smith. We know, in retrospect, that those were corrupt arrangements, but we could not have found that out through Parliament. If exactly the same were to happen today, we would have no means of establishing whether there was a corrupt arrangement.

I want to come to the matter of imputations of falsehood. Earlier this year, we had a debate about the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who is now the Secretary of State for Health—a bizarre promotion to my mind, but that is a matter for the Prime Minister’s conscience and not for anyone else’s. I made allegations about him in the debate, which had been made by other people in different terms, but amounting to exactly the same thing. I will not repeat them here, because that would be inappropriate. Members have to understand that when a motion specifically refers to the conduct of a Member they must be able to make an allegation about that conduct, and that also applies to Members of the House of Lords and of elsewhere.

In the 19th century, there were direct accusations against Viscount Palmerston, who, because his viscountcy was an Irish one, was a Member of the House of Commons. The Speaker ruled very clearly that if the debate was about whether Viscount Palmerston had lied to the House, it was perfectly possible to make that allegation, although it would not be in any other kind of debate. We need to draw that line very carefully, because there will be times when our constituents want us to say directly, in words that they understand, adhere to and support, what the allegation is. Sometimes when we mystify parliamentary language, we do ourselves an enormous disservice.

I have already referred to the issue of what should and should not be said in Parliament, and there is just one other thing that I want to mention. If we are to do our job well in opposition—all of us, at some point, are likely to be in opposition—it is important that Ministers adhere to all the elements of the ministerial code. I note that on Monday the Home Secretary was not able to provide a copy of her speech to the Opposition before she stood up to make her statement. It was said that providing it beforehand was merely a convention of the House. That is not so. Section 9.5 of the ministerial code states:

“A copy of the text of an oral statement should usually be shown to the Opposition shortly before it is made.”

I think that “usually” is there because of the Budget, and only because of that. It goes on:

“For this purpose, 15 copies of the statement and associated documents should be sent to the Chief Whip’s Office at least 45 minutes before the statement is to be made.”

I cannot remember the Home Secretary providing a copy of her statement to the shadow Home Office team 45 minutes, 40 minutes, 35 minutes or 25 minutes before, and I very much hope that when the Minister replies, he will tell us that he will ensure that the Prime Minister will reply to questions and that all Ministers will provide Opposition spokespeople with a copy of their statements at least 45 minutes before they deliver them, as required in the ministerial code.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is a former Deputy Leader of the House, on securing the debate. He has set out his detailed historical knowledge of parliamentary procedure and his long-standing interest in the matter. He highlighted some of the discrepancies that can be identified in “Erskine May”, and has entertained us with stories of how Parliament used to be. He presented an image that resembled a fight club, but with occasional use of parliamentary procedural language.

It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate, particularly as the Government have no direct responsibility for parliamentary language. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the language used in Parliament is a matter for Parliament itself, and in this House it is the Chair rather than the Government who has responsibility for ensuring that what is said is in accordance with the rules and conventions of the House. We all rightly respect the Chair, and in responding to the debate I certainly will not be suggesting to you, Mrs Riordan, nor to the Speaker or his Deputies, how they should apply the rules of the House.

Having absolved myself of any responsibility for parliamentary language, I am happy to address the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. It is right that we conduct debates in the House in a courteous and reasonable manner. Although we may profoundly disagree with one another, resorting to personal insult and abuse would demean the institution of Parliament and its Members. “Erskine May” states that

“good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.”

There may be times when those characteristics are not as in evidence as they might be, but we rely on the wisdom and authority of the Chair to set the limits.

Being too prescriptive about terms that are and are not parliamentary is easy. Much depends on the context in which they are used. As the hon. Gentleman may know, pre-1983 editions of “Erskine May” contained lists of terms that had been ruled unparliamentary. The disadvantage, of course, is that unparliamentary use is often more to do with context or the tone with which something is said. Simply having a list is no guarantee against parliamentary abuse by Members.

We have all experienced this, me included: I thought that my language was in good temper and moderation as I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on freedom of information, during which I did not accuse individual Members, but accused some of perhaps duplicitous behaviour in relation to expenses and a particular Bill, but I was slapped down because my language was deemed bad-tempered and immoderate. I felt that, in those circumstances, the language that I used was appropriate. To codify such things is extremely difficult, as they are not always black and white, which is why it is better for the Chair to judge the factors on a case-by-case basis.

I think that most Members would not want us to go down the Australian route, where a much more colourful turn of phrase is permitted. The terms of endearment that Paul Keating used towards John Howard include “desiccated coconut,” “mangy maggot,” and much worse. I hope most Members would agree that that is not the route we should go down.

The hon. Gentleman referred to arcane language. I understand his point. He said that the arcane language we use is often unnecessary or old-fashioned, but addressing other Members through the Chair provides some distance and perhaps reduces the antagonism that might be felt and, therefore, slightly lowers the temperature of debates, which should be welcomed.

[Chris Bryant]

I could talk through the Chair but, none the less, refer to Tom Brake, rather than the right hon. Member for whatever constituency he represents.

[Tom Brake]

Indeed, the hon. Gentleman could. My point is that, by talking through the Chair and referring to other Members as right hon. Gentlemen or right hon. Ladies, we are providing some distance and reducing the temperature, which, except for some rather bad-tempered debates, ensures that good-tempered and moderate language is used in the House.

People might feel that some of the terminology that we use—Adjournment debates, early-day motions, substantive motions and Divisions—do not help the public to engage, but others would argue that at least some members of the public appear to have little difficulty in following parliamentary proceedings on the Parliament channel. They seem to cope with some of that language. Of course, there have been some incremental reforms: we do not refer to the Public Gallery as the Strangers Gallery any more. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the new Chair of the Procedure Committee, might have views on such matters and want to consider the question of archaic language.

One point on which the hon. Member for Rhondda was perhaps not entirely correct is that, in this House, we may refer to members of the royal family, the Speaker, members of other Parliaments and judges, provided that there is a substantive motion for the House to debate. In such circumstances, it is perfectly legitimate to debate members of the royal family or other categories, such as senior judges. Again, the fact that that is done through a substantive motion ensures that, for instance, the courts are treated with the respect they should and that there is a strong relationship of trust and respect between the courts and the House.

[Chris Bryant]

If, for instance, a member of the royal family is appointed by UK Trade and Investment to adopt an ambassadorial role on behalf of the country and the Government, is it not perfectly appropriate that Members of Parliament should be able to ask questions about the expenditure on their flights, how much it costs for them to travel, whether they have been doing a good job and whether, frankly, they have been a complete and utter embarrassment to the country?

[Tom Brake]

A debate on the hon. Gentleman’s specific points might be possible through a substantive motion, and I will write to him to clarify that.

Finally, time does not allow me to rehearse the 13 June debate on the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, but that debate made something clear: when a serious allegation is made against a Member and provided there is a substantive motion, it is perfectly in order for that debate to take place and for matters contained in the substantive motion to be raised. The only caveat is that there is still a need to maintain good-tempered and moderate language in that debate, so that the genuine, substantive issues contained in the motion can be debated appropriately.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. I have noted his concerns and will ensure that they are drawn to the attention of, for instance, the new Chair of the Procedure Committee. He raised the specific point about Ministers ensuring that statements are received within 45 minutes, which I will ensure is taken up with Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

Before answering, may I record the congratulations of the whole House to everybody involved in London 2012?

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Especially Tessa.

[Hugh Robertson]

Wait a moment—the hon. Gentleman is being slightly tedious. I congratulate in particular the athletes of Team GB and ParalympicsGB. Moreover, I would particularly like to record, on behalf of everybody, our congratulations to the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) on her contribution to the project over many years. I also congratulate—I know that this will please you, Mr Speaker —Andy Murray on his win in New York on Monday.

Through the school games, we are encouraging all schools to offer their pupils the chance to play more competitive sport. More than 14,000 schools have so far signed up to participate and, in addition, 1,600 of our best young athletes had the chance to compete in and around the Olympic park in the inaugural national finals in May. The national governing bodies of sports will use the inspiration of the London 2012 games to encourage more young people to take up their sport. One example is hockey’s “Give it a Go” scheme, which has now attracted more than 20,000 people at more than 600 sites across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her kind words and look forward to continuing to work with her on these issues and those of women and equality.

The right hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right that there are issues within Leveson that have clear read-across to the report that was released yesterday. However, at this time I want to ensure that we continue to focus first and foremost on the importance of getting it right for the families involved. We will examine the report in great detail to ensure that any necessary actions are taken so that we do not have the same scandalous situation again.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to her new job, but she has made one mistake already, because there is not to be one report by Leveson: there are meant to be two, and I believe that the second is the more important. It is to be on what actually happened at the News of the World. So far, Lord Justice Leveson and everybody else have rightly avoided the illegality, criminality and dodginess that went on between the police and the News of the World, for the simple reason that nobody wants to compromise criminal prosecutions. Will she ensure that, contrary to what Lord Leveson has been saying, he will produce a second report so that we know what went on?

[Maria Miller]

I will, of course, always look to the hon. Gentleman to keep me right on these things. He is absolutely right that there is a part two to the inquiry and, as I think we have already made clear, the Government will make a statement on part two when part one has concluded. It is important that we take these things at the proper pace and that we have time to consider the initial report before we consider further work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

It is worth pointing out that over the recent period there have been 32 statements by the Prime Minister. We are making more statements per day than under the previous Government. I agree, however, that it would be a good idea to allow Westminster Hall to be used for oral statements, and the Leader of the House has expressed support for that.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

In which case why, at 10 o’clock today, did the Minister for Universities and Science make an announcement on changing the immigration policy at a conference a long way from here?