Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Education
Chris Bryant
Main Page: Chris Bryant (Labour - Rhondda and Ogmore)Department Debates - View all Chris Bryant's debates with the Department for Education
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Chris Bryant Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
We will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. I am saving him up. It would be a pity to waste him prematurely.
Clause 40
Cartel Offence
Amendments made: 18, page 37, line 20, at end insert—
‘(6) After section 188A (as inserted by subsection (5) above) insert—
“188B Defences to commission of cartel offence
(1) In a case where the arrangements would (operating as the parties intend) affect the supply in the United Kingdom of a product or service, it is a defence for an individual charged with an offence under section 188(1) to show that, at the time of the making of the agreement, he or she did not intend that the nature of the arrangements would be concealed from customers at all times before they enter into agreements for the supply to them of the product or service.
(2) It is a defence for an individual charged with an offence under section 188(1) to show that, at the time of the making of the agreement, he or she did not intend that the nature of the arrangements would be concealed from the CMA.
(3) It is a defence for an individual charged with an offence under section 188(1) to show that, before the making of the agreement, he or she took reasonable steps to ensure that the nature of the arrangements would be disclosed to professional legal advisers for the purposes of obtaining advice about them before their making or (as the case may be) their implementation.”’.
Amendment 19, page 37, line 20, at end insert—
‘( ) After section 190 of the 2002 Act insert—
“190A Cartel offence: prosecution guidance
(1) The CMA must prepare and publish guidance on the principles to be applied in determining, in any case, whether proceedings for an offence under section 188(1) should be instituted.
(2) The CMA may at any time issue revised or new guidance.
(3) Guidance published by the CMA under this section is to be published in such manner as it considers appropriate.
(4) In preparing guidance under this section the CMA must consult—
(a) the Director of the Serious Fraud Office;
(b) the Lord Advocate; and
(c) such other persons as it considers appropriate.”’.
Amendment 20, page 37, line 21, leave out ‘this section’ and insert ‘subsections (1) to (6)’.—(Jo Swinson.)
Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure how to describe my relationship with the Prime Minister, but it is quite on and off. On 25 June, he said that he was going to refuse to answer any of my questions until I apologised to the House—even though I had already apologised to the House. On 27 June, just two days later, he did reply to a question, and he did the same in September, but today he is back to not replying to questions.
I fully understand the ruling that you gave this afternoon, Mr Speaker, as you are not in charge of the quality of answers, but I do not think that there has ever in the history of the House been an occasion when a Prime Minister has said that he or she would—full stop—not reply to any question. I think you have ruled, and previous Speakers have ruled on many occasions previously, that when a Minister refuses to reply to a written question, they must answer it, not least because the ministerial code, written by the Prime Minister, 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”.
That, of course, is incorporated in a motion of the House, resolved on 19 March 1997. I would have thought that expressly saying that one will not reply to an individual Member of the House is an affront to the House; in particular, it is an affront to my constituents. It should not be countenanced, surely.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, to which I make two points in response. First, with reference to the ministerial code, I simply remind the House that responsibility for it rests with the Prime Minister, and it seems unlikely that the Prime Minister will be minded to investigate himself. I say that not in a spirit of levity, but because I think it is a pertinent observation in practical terms. Secondly, I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, and I do not intend any discourtesy to him, as I take the hon. Gentleman very seriously—almost as seriously as he takes himself. [Laughter.] I do take him extremely seriously and I have a very high respect for him, as he knows. What I would say at this stage is that this is clearly a highly controversial matter, on which I do not feel I can rule off the cuff now. That is not to duck it; I will reflect on the very important point that he has made and I will come back to him and, if appropriate, to the House. I hope that that is helpful.
Third Reading
Queen’s consent signified.