European Council

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I should say that the banking union agreement was negotiated not by me but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He deserves the credit for the 5 am finish in the negotiations, which safeguarded Britain’s interests. My hon. Friend is right in what she says.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister—[Interruption]—it’s all right, don’t worry—on supporting, last week, a step change in the development of a common defence and foreign policy for the European Union, especially as we are in the run-up to the EU Russia summit on Friday. Does it not make sense for Europe to approach, in particular, the Russian Federation with a single set of core objectives, so that we can see a successful set of outcomes? When the Germans or the French have negotiated on their own, everyone has ended up with a bad deal. Now that the Americans have introduced a Magnitsky Act, is it not time that we did the same in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

What I would say to my— [Laughter.] I am sorry; there is only so much excitement that one can take in a single day. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that I think that one of the worthwhile aspects of our engagement in Europe is the ability to discuss issues—whether they relate to the situation in Syria or to relations with other powers—and try to reach common positions that maximise the influence that we then have. I think it important for the discussions to be held on the basis of unanimity. We do effectively have a veto in this area, but when we can agree, as we did on Syria and Iran, there can be very powerful consequences.

Leveson Inquiry

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have got the Irish Defamation Act of 2009 in front of me. It runs to many, many pages, setting out many, many powers of the Irish Press Council. It is worth Members of the House studying the Irish situation and asking whether we want to have legislation of that extent on our statute book—which of course could then be amended at any moment, by any politician at any future point. That is an important consideration.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests—but that is rather the point: we all share an interest in this. Lord Leveson reserves his strongest condemnation for the political class in this country, because he believes that over years—because we have been too compromised, too craven or too cowardly—we have refused to act. We now have an independent figure telling us what to do. Surely if we do not do what he says, which is to provide a change in the law, there will be more Millie Dowlers, and that will be our fault.

[The Prime Minister]

I would also argue that one of the other problems with the political class is never saying sorry when they get it wrong. On 13 November 2012, the hon. Gentleman spoke about the

“deal…secured between the Conservative party and News International”.—[Official Report, 13 November 2012; Vol. 32, c. 553WH.]

We have heard not a word of regret from him. What matters most about this is putting in place a regulatory system that can make the victims proud. That is what is necessary. The fines, the apologies, the proper investigations—that needs to be done and it can be done right away.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I think that the general principle that there should be greater legitimacy when people take decisions in the name of the public and which affect the public is an important one, and it is not one that found a great deal of favour across both sides of this House when we debated it as it applied to the House of Lords. We have made considerable efforts to streamline some of the extraordinary blizzard of unaccountable quangos that developed under Labour. I know that various Ministers have made considerable efforts in their Departments to reduce the number of quangos and introduce greater legitimacy in public decision making.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister has taken an admirable position in relation to the Leveson inquiry. Would it not be in the interests of transparency for all the e-mails between Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, while he was working at No. 10 Downing street and corresponding about the future of the licence fee and many other issues, to be in the public domain before the inquiry publishes its findings?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister has made it quite clear that he has provided all the e-mails and information required of him by the Leveson inquiry. On the inquiry generally, the hon. Gentleman also knows that my view has been for some time, given that we established the inquiry, which the previous Government did not do, that if the recommendations are workable and proportionate, we should proceed and seek to implement them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor-General]

It is certainly important to recognise that this is not an alternative to prosecuting in serious cases, and the SFO and the CPS are very anxious to ensure that that is the case. It is particularly important that individuals should not feel that they have any way out of their liabilities, but this relates purely to organisations. A sunset clause is not contemplated at present, but the hon. Lady has put the idea forward and of course I will look at it. I thank her for making that important contribution.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

But all too often directors of companies are, in effect, complicit in what has been going on when economic crime is involved in their organisation. They want to protect the company rather than self-declare. Indeed, this surely must lead the Crown Prosecution Service to take very seriously the idea, when directors are negligent, of bringing prosecutions under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 or the Data Protection Act against the body corporate—for instance, News International.

[The Solicitor-General]

I clearly cannot comment on a particular case, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is important that this should be about self-reporting by companies. That does not let individuals off the hook, but it means that the business and jobs can continue and that these business entities have certainty, while ensuring that they are on tough conditions. The whole point of this is that a company should pay a penalty and be on tough conditions that will be monitored by a judge, to ensure that it cleans up its act and provides all the information necessary to the prosecution authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Minister boasts about the Government’s transparency. The Cabinet Office still holds a large cache of e-mails from Andy Coulson to Rebekah Brooks. When will the Minister publish them?

[Mr Maude]

I think that the hon. Gentleman needs to change the record.

European Council

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. If Britain was not at the table, I do not believe a free trade agreement would have much chance at all. There are countries alongside us that are in favour of it, but we are probably one of the most enthusiastic. I met the Japanese equivalent of the CBI last week at No. 10 Downing street with the Business Secretary, and I said that I would push hard for a free trade agreement with Japan. We have got a change in the language of the conclusions to talk about starting the negotiations in the coming months. However, it is hard work pushing and driving that agenda, because many countries would rather not see that happen. We think it is good for Britain. One of our selling points is being the most open trading economy in Europe, and we need to keep that up.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has said a lot about mates this afternoon. Was there any discussion about the relations between the EU and Russia? Russia’s activities, or intransigence, on Syria have made the situation immensely worse there and infected the situation in the Lebanon. If there was any such discussion, can he explain why his mates—not just the members of Putin’s party but his own Conservative Members of Parliament and two Conservative peers—voted against the resolution at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe condemning Russia’s human rights activities?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid we did not get the apology that we were waiting for. We will have to be very patient.

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on a key detail. The Conservative representatives at the Council did vote for the report to which he refers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Labour MP after Labour MP is trooping up to Corby and claiming that the hospital is not safe when they know that that it is simply not true. The local newspaper is now backing up the fact that the hospital is being invested in by this Government, because unlike the party opposite—[Interruption.] Yes, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) is over there on the Opposition Benches. You know what? He is going to stay there for a very, very long time. The reason he will stay there is the reason why this country is in a mess—it is because of the borrowing, the spending and the debt that he delivered. His answer is more borrowing, more spending and more debt, so he should get himself comfortable.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Q9. Why will the Prime Minister not—[Interruption.] I am over here. Why will the Prime Minister not publish all the texts, e-mails and other forms of correspondence between himself and his office and Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson and News International, so that we can judge whether they are relevant? Is it because they are too salacious and embarrassing for the Prime Minister? [Interruption.] I would not smile if I was him; when the truth comes out, he will not be smiling. Or will he not publish the correspondence because there is one rule for him and another for the rest of us?

[The Prime Minister]

Mr Speaker, before answering this question, I would like hon. Members to recall that the hon. Gentleman stood up in the House and read out a whole lot of Leveson information that was under embargo and that he was not meant to read out, much of which about me turned out to be untrue, and he has never apologised. Do you know what? Until he apologises, I am not going to answer his questions—[Interruption.]

Hillsborough

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on it. When I said “new evidence”, I suppose I meant “newly published evidence”. The inquiry has not uncovered things that did not previously exist—they existed but were not published, so their publication is what is new today. The really important point he makes will take careful consideration, and those in government at the time will want to think this through and provide their own answers. The sense I get from the limited look I have had at the report is that advice went to Ministers that the behaviour was “depressingly familiar” and that the chief constable should resign. The question then is whether the output of that advice resulted in enough action by that Government and subsequent ones to blow away the false narrative that was building up. That is a very important question that people will want to consider.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has done a good thing today and he has done it well. Surely to God the role of the media should have been to uncover the corruption and the lies, and not to try to mask the corruption in the police or effectively to perpetuate it. I know the Prime Minister is very reluctant to tell people who should make apologies, but I have tried so many times on television and radio programmes to get Kelvin MacKenzie just to say the simple word “sorry” unambiguously, because every ambiguous apology hurts more than saying nothing. Surely to God The Sun tomorrow should just say sorry. Surely to God Kelvin MacKenzie, if he is to go on any media outlet at all, should be saying sorry. For that matter, surely The Spectator should say sorry too.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. We should not forget that some media publications stood up for the families, examined the issue and helped to get to the truth. We should therefore not try to blacken the name of everyone in one go. Clearly, The Sun has always been up there because of that appalling article—“The Truth”—and the appalling things written in it. My view is that Kelvin MacKenzie needs to take responsibility for that and he should be very clear about it, but it is for others to decide. My understanding is that The Sun and the police have apologised in the past. Lots of apologies have been made, but the point is that we now have a definitive guide to what happened. Now is the time for not only the proper, heartfelt “I’m sorry”, but the “Here’s what I got wrong and here’s what I regret.” It is like what we say when we deal with our children: sorry is not good enough unless people understand what they screwed up in the first place.

Immigration

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Field]

I have always underscored those points, but hon. Members who put them to me also need to look at the evidence. What did the House of Lords Committee say about the contribution overall that immigrants make to our economy? It is minuscule. Of course immigrants earn their way and make a contribution, but to think that we are pounds in is mistaken. If hon. Members want to dispute the figures, they will catch your eye, Mr Speaker. I am saying that unlimited migration on the scale that we have seen is not such an economic advantage to this country as some of the proponents of open doors would wish us to believe.

I wish to pose another question to the new Immigration Minister: if he accepts those projections, what measures will he take that make a target limit of 70 million people possible? My third question is about the sources of the growth in immigration. If one looks at the net figures, one finds three major sources: people who have work permits; people who, under the conditions, bring their families here; and students. We know that the work permits that the Government make available are not all taken up, so it is not as if work permits are a main driver of the stubborn level of net migration. On people who bring their immediate family over, the figures show that families do not account for a net migration figure each year of in excess of 200,000.

On students, my question is whether the attempt to meet the Government’s target will mean looking critically and resolutely at the size of the student population that probably stays. We have only one piece of information about students returning home. It was a Home Office survey, which showed that after five years one could account for 20% of students who came here under certain conditions who were still here legitimately to work. We simply do not know what happened to the other 80%.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

No, no.

[Mr Field]

Let me give way to my hon. Friend on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is completely wrong in his analysis of those statistics. Even more importantly, his motion refers to population. According to every piece of work that has been done, the vast majority of students go home. Their whole point is to study here and go home, and then hopefully become ambassadors for doing business with Britain in their home country.

[Mr Field]

Of course, but it will be noticeable to people watching this debate that I gave way and the point was not answered. There were some generalities on all this information. There is one survey, which the Home Office undertook, that showed that after five years we could account for 20% of students who passed through our universities. They were still in this country and had every right to be here: we do not know whether the others went home or not.

[Chris Bryant]

The 2010 Home Office study “The Migrant Journey”—I think that is the one to which my right hon. Friend refers—showed that 21% of individuals who entered as students in 2004 remained in the UK, which is exactly the opposite of what he is saying. In actual fact, some of them were staying on to study because their courses lasted for more than five years and some of them had changed to a different migration route. The only evidence of people staying illegally in that study was 3%, not the 80% that my right hon. Friend mentions.

[Mr Field]

I would be grateful if Front Benchers would listen. What I said was that the one survey that we have shows that after that period of time we could account for 20% of the students who come to our universities. They were still in this country—they had every right to be here—and they were pursuing studies or, more likely, working. We do not know from that Home Office study what happened to the other 80%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Repatriation?

[Mr Turner]

Yes, that is the word.

[Chris Bryant]

Repatriation?

[Mr Turner]

Yes, that is the word and that is what it means. If someone chooses to go home, we may help them, and if possible that should be determined by our own Government, not the Europeans.

We are working through the system, but it appears to be a case of taking two steps forward and one step back, and it is one of the few areas where I would welcome more progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

What a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff), who made a remarkable speech.

I, too, want to focus on numbers, as the motion does. It is a strange thing that from the early part of the 19th century until past the middle of the last century it was almost universally accepted that overcrowding and over-population was a major driver of poverty. Indeed, in one scheme alone, between 1922 and 1935, more than 400,000 people received Government assistance to emigrate, principally to Canada and Australia. The Office for National Statistics estimated in 2004 that we would have 67 million people by 2031. Six years later, that figure had gone up to 72 million, or 5 million more. Yet there is widespread concern among reputable statistical agencies—I mention the Bank of England as just one that has gone public—that the ONS has lost count. Indeed, if we look at the detailed way in which it calculates the figures—in particular, its assumptions about birth rates, which make no adjustment at all for a changing composition—we find good grounds for thinking that its projections might not be accurate. All are on the same side of the equation—that is, in every case there are grounds for thinking that the ONS’s projections are too low, rather than too high.

There is a further issue, which people are very reluctant to address. I hope nobody is going to accuse me of being a racist—if they do, I am not going to dignify the comment with an answer—but we have to look at the detail and accept two facts. The first is that the phrase “net migration” is misleading. To take the age profile of the people coming in and those going out, it is perfectly absurd in demographic terms to equate pensioners retiring to the sun with young people coming in who have not yet started families.

The second point is that many of those coming in are from areas that have historically had much higher birth rates than the indigenous group. The trend in every country in the world is that birth rates among incoming communities tend to trend towards the national average of the country that they are joining, with one important exception: if those groups do not become absorbed into the wider body. Over the last few years, we have for the first time begun to see the very unsettling picture, to which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) referred, of some groups not assimilating.

Over the last few weeks, we have rightly felt enormous national pride at the performance of our Olympics team. Nobody needs me to say that the racial mixture—the original ethnic origins—of the people who won all those medals for Britain, and in many cases of those who did very well but did not get medals, covers the full spectrum of people here. What was much less widely discussed, however—and what has started to come out only recently—was a whole string of violent acts by people living round the area against service personnel. Those acts were not only against personnel responsible for guarding the area, but in one case against naval personnel from a visiting ship, to such an extent that I understand that instructions were given out towards the end not to be seen, if possible, in uniform too far from the site.

I mention that not because I would dream for one second of denying the colossal contribution that so many immigrants have made to this country, nor because I am a racist—I am incredibly proud of the fact that my grandfather was a member of the Indian army, the largest volunteer force ever raised in the history of this country and drawn from every conceivable religious background and an awful lot of different racial backgrounds in India—but because we must recognise the important warnings that the right hon. Gentleman gave. We are now starting to attract some groups that do not feel British.

Let me spend the last couple of minutes on a few more statistics that should worry us all. We all believe that every family needs a decent home. I know of no other country, except possibly Japan, where average house prices are seven times earnings despite the recession. House prices here are certainly much higher than in America or Germany, two other prosperous countries where the figures are 4.5 and 4. In London, there is not a single borough left in which one can rent a two-bedroom dwelling for less than 35% of the median earnings, and there are a relatively small number left where the figure is less than a half. We have housing shortages on a scale that is completely unprecedented in the modern era. We have heard a lot of references to infrastructure as well.

I want to end with students. I am proud of the fact that I represent the area with the largest concentration of students in the country, with four universities wholly or partly in my constituency. I am immensely proud of what we do, taking in foreign students, who bring money to this country and provide us with good will. However, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who speaks for the Opposition, was quite wrong in his intervention on his right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead. I have a copy of that study, “The Migrant Journey”, with the note from the Library confirming that it was a purely paper exercise. Although the study shows that 21% had a reason to stay in the country, together with thousands of dependants, nothing is known about where the other 79% went.

[Chris Bryant]

Because they had left.

[Mr Brazier]

No, there is no evidence for that at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I, like all Members who have spoken in this debate, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) on introducing this debate. I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) that it is right that Parliament should talk about and address one of the issues that is of primary concern to a great number of our constituents. A lot of them take such issues seriously, whether they be migrants themselves, whether their families have been in this country for 1,500 years, or whether they be second or third generation migrants. I have never believed that, just because somebody is concerned about immigration, that, somehow or other, makes them racist. Of course, some such people are racist, but the vast majority are not. They are not bigots; they have a serious set of concerns that we need to address, so I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I have to say, however, that I think that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to have his cake and eat it, if he does not mind me saying so.

[Nicholas Soames]

I have always wanted my cake.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman is smiling. I did not mean that to be a foodist comment. He argued in favour of cuts to immigration, but then said that he wants an easier system for distinguished people to come into the country. He said that he wants to get rid of the hub and spoke system, but I would suggest that that would significantly increase the costs of running this country’s migration system, and that he wants to give the officials far more discretion. There is real danger in going down that route. We have to have a system that is manifestly fair and robust and that delivers the same outcome, whatever personal connections somebody may have.

As several Members have said, there are three problems with the motion. First, it links immigration policy to population, and population only. Secondly, it uses the phrase “all necessary steps”, which is a very dangerous set of words. Thirdly, there is a danger that if we agree to the motion we would effectively be cutting off our noses to spite our faces, because of the potential unintended consequences for the future with regard to our economy and our society, let alone to the specifics of our education.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Bryant]

My right hon. Friend has not even been present during the debate.

[Keith Vaz]

I have.

[Chris Bryant]

I apologise and give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Keith Vaz]

I object to my hon. Friend’s comment. I know that he does not have eyes in his head, but I certainly have been present during the debate. [Interruption.] I meant to say that my hon. Friend does not have eyes in the back of his head. Prior to this debate, I was chairing the Home Affairs Committee and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, in her evidence, the Home Secretary was very clear that she does not believe in an arbitrary cap on the population of this country either.

[Chris Bryant]

Good. I am glad that my right hon. Friend confirmed that I have eyes in my head, if not in the back of it. Usually, I can sense his presence in the Chamber, but could not on this occasion, so I apologise.

I will make a few introductory remarks. First, it is vital that we have a robust, firm, workable and controlled immigration system that is fair to resident British nationals and to migrants who seek to come here.

Secondly, as many hon. Members have said, sometimes perhaps slightly patronisingly, immigrants have contributed enormously to the United Kingdom. I am sure that we would all agree with that. Few of the people living in my constituency of the Rhondda were not born there. I think that the percentage is the lowest of any constituency in the country. However, 100 years ago, there would not have been the economic growth that there was in the valleys of south Wales without migration from Ireland, England, Scotland and, most notably, Italy. When there was significant unemployment in Italy, many Italians came to work in the south Wales valleys, which is why a café is known as a brachi in south Wales.

Thirdly, British emigrants have contributed phenomenally around the world. One has only to go to Buenos Aires and see that it has more pipe bands than Glasgow to see the positive role that British people have played elsewhere. It would be hypocritical to adopt an attitude that we do not expect British people to face when they travel abroad as emigrants.

[Mr Brazier]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way, but I am hesitant as this is a Bach-Bench debate and I do not want to take a vast amount of time.

[Mr Brazier]

The motion is about numbers. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there is a vast difference between people moving from Europe, a largely overcrowded continent, to the emptiest countries in the world, such as Australia, Canada and large parts of south America, and the problems that we face as almost the most congested corner of Europe?

[Chris Bryant]

It does not feel very congested in the Rhondda, I have to say. Sometimes this debate is conditioned strongly by the problems in the south-east of England. It is also a problem for our economy that we are far more dependent on one area—London and the south-east of England—than many countries in Europe. The more that we can to do shrink the country and extend financial opportunities around the country, the better.

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of Latin America. The biggest and fastest-growing cities in the world are all in Latin America and many parts of it face vast congestion. I just think that he is wrong on those facts.

The vast majority of British people value the presence in British universities of international students. We all see that as a positive for the British economy, because if people study in this country and then go back to their country, they are—we hope—more likely to have a positive experience of this country and to do business with us in the future. That is without mentioning the amount of money that having international students pumps into the British economy.

In addition, the vast majority of people in this country want to protect our reputation for welcoming refugees from oppression, torture, violence and oppressive regimes around the world. Although free movement within the European Union undoubtedly has its problems—that is felt not just in the United Kingdom, but notably at the moment in Spain—it is vital to the free market on which the British economy depends.

Linking immigration to population is not as straightforward as many hon. Members have suggested this afternoon. Those who come to this country often leave. If we changed the number of people coming into the country in some categories, we would lose the bounce effect from the people who leave after a few years.

[Nicola Blackwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady really has not been here for the whole debate, but I will give way to her.

[Nicola Blackwood]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind. I speak as the daughter of a migrant, but he is free to patronise my contribution at any moment he chooses. Does he agree that a significant problem with regard to numbers, which as far as I am aware has not been raised, is that it is incredibly difficult to have an informed debate about immigration when the data collection on those who are in the country and those who exit the country is not complete? We need to fix that problem if we are to form a proper evidence-based policy on immigration.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady makes a very fair point, which is related to the next point that I was going to make. Several hon. Members have referred to the number of students, and 60% of non-EU migrants to this country are students. My contention is that the vast majority of those students return to their country of origin. Their whole aim is to come here, study and take their skills back to their own country. The evidence is not cast-iron on any side of that argument, but let those who say that the vast majority of students stay here prove it. I simply do not believe that to be the case.

I return to the figure of 70 million mentioned in the motion. Several hon. Members have been profoundly misled about the figures, because if net migration were zero in every category for the next 25 years, the population would grow to 66 million by 2035, up 6% from what it was in 2010. If net migration were tens of thousands, which as a couple of Members have mentioned is the Government’s declared aim, the population would be 70 million just after 2035. I do not think the measures that are currently being taken will achieve that declared aim, so they would have to be redoubled, if not trebled, for us to achieve what the motion proposes.

In addition, intra-company transfers under tier 2 were at 29,000 in 2010, roughly the same number in 2011 and 29,571 in 2012, but none of them entitles somebody to settlement in this country, so tackling them would not affect the final figures to which the motion refers.

I also object to the phrase “all necessary steps”. Even if the Government were to achieve their declared aim, the population would reach 70 million just after 2035. I suppose that if we were taking all necessary steps, we could theoretically tear up all our asylum commitments. The number of them has fallen in recent years to 19,804, but they are long-standing commitments. Would we really want to tell people fleeing Mugabe or a vicious regime elsewhere in the world that they could not come to this country, and that we would no longer respect those commitments?

We could cut the cap on tier 2 migration below 21,700, but it is already undersubscribed. Only half the certificates of sponsorship were taken up in the last year. If we cut intra-company transfers by installing a cap, I believe that we would dramatically harm the UK’s opportunity to act as an international hub.

We could encourage more people to leave the country and make them emigrate by increasing the threshold for settlement to more than £35,000, but that would touch only some 3,000 people at best. We could curtail non-EU migration, but not without cutting demand. According to many employers, the danger is that they would simply seek to employ more EU migrants. The key point is that we have to deal with demand for migrant labour in the UK. For instance, we need to deal with pay and conditions in many parts of the country, so that it makes sense for British people to work. We need to ensure that people have the skills to be able to take the jobs in key industries such as construction and hospitality that are currently being taken by migrants. We also have to tackle the vectors of mass migration around the world, particularly war, famine, poverty and climate change. On that basis, I do not think it would be right to support the motion.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

If the Labour party’s views have evolved over the past 100 years, which in this matter, if not in others, they may have, I hope none the less that the right hon. Lady will confirm that there was a clear manifesto commitment from the Labour party not only to support the principle of House of Lords reform, but to deliver it in practice.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will the Deputy Prime Minister give way?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I shall make a little more progress, if I may.

In 2007, the Commons voted overwhelmingly for a mostly elected second Chamber. Each of the main parties stood on a platform of Lords reform at the last election, and since coming into Government the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), and I have looked for every way to take it forward by consensus.

We convened a cross-party Committee, which I chaired. We then published a White Paper and a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I know that the hon. Gentleman holds his views, although different from mine, with great sincerity, and I respect him for that, but in a bicameral democratic system there is nothing unusual about having two Chambers, both of which are either fully elected or mainly elected, and in which there is a clear imbalance, an asymmetry—a hierarchy, if you like —in the relationship of one Chamber with the other. I am sure that we can manage it here. The predictions that it would lead to gridlock and to rivalry between the two Chambers were made when reform took place in 1958 and in 1999. They did not materialise then; I really do not believe that they will this time, either.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Deputy Prime Minister give way?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

If I can make a little more progress, I will give way.

Of course, this does not mean that every Member of this House agrees with every clause—[Laughter.] That is an understatement! There is no perfect blueprint for a modernised second Chamber. Even within each of the main parties, differing visions of reform can be found, and this Bill reflects a number of compromises that have been made to accommodate differences across the House. I say to Members of this House who have specific worries about particular aspects of this Bill that this is precisely what further scrutiny of the proposals, in both Houses, will be about. The concerns that remain fall into two main camps: the myths, which I will now seek to dispel; and the fears, which I hope to address. But before doing so, I give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

[Chris Bryant]

The Deputy Prime Minister knows that I support reform and have done for a very long time, but there are elements of the Bill that I do not like, such as the 15-year term and the fact that it is not clear enough about the respective powers of the two Houses. If the Government are going to end up Parliament-Acting the Bill because the Lords refuses to deal with it, it is all the more incumbent on us to get it right before we send it down the corridor. That is why I say to him, regretfully, that his programme does not fit the bill.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I would be intrigued if the hon. Gentleman could tell me—if not now, afterwards —exactly how many days Labour Members want.

The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) said today in The Guardian that the reason he is opposing the programme motion has nothing to do with scrutiny of the Bill:

“Within the rest of the legislative programme are loads of right-wing bills which will damage people in Britain. So I don’t think it is any part of our responsibility to try and get those bills into statute.”

In other words, Labour’s ulterior motive appears to be to disrupt the rest of the Government’s business. That is not a legitimate way of dealing with a programme motion, which is a perfectly reasonable way for the Government to try to make progress on this important piece of legislation without disrupting all other parts of our business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

Let me refer to the manifesto on which the hon. Gentleman stood and won in 2010. In a section on the House of Commons entitled

“Strengthen the House of Commons to increase accountability”,

it stated that Parliament would be given

“control over its own agenda so that all bills leaving the Commons have been fully debated.”

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. One problem is that when we debate important pieces of legislation, we sometimes expect them to be corrected in the House of Lords and choose not to have votes in this Chamber as they take 15 minutes, losing us time for debate. Is it not therefore all the more important, particularly on clause 1, which contains nearly all the issues of composition, that we have as much time as it takes to get it absolutely right and to have as many votes as we need to get it right? Otherwise, there will be no prospect of the Bill ever coming into law because we will be unable to Parliament Act it.

[Sadiq Khan]

On a number of occasions, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have said that they will use the Parliament Act to get the Bill through, which means that the second Chamber’s ability to revise and improve will have gone and the Bill must leave this Chamber in the best state possible. If debate is guillotined, that will not be possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristram Hunt]

I think that removing the hereditary peers was so obvious a change that we did not need a referendum, but this is not an obvious change. There are major complexities, as we have just teased out, with regard to justiciability between the two Houses and composition. All sorts of questions need to be answered.

I also agree with the change from 300 to 450 Members, because I think that the initial proposal for a wholly professionalised and salaried body of 300 was incorrect. However, if Ministers think that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will simply allow them to decide who is paid what, it is clear that they have not looked at the evidence its representatives gave to the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill. I think that Ministers will find that IPSA will take a great deal more control of what happens to Members of the other place than they believe. I am in favour of keeping the bishops and the established Church, and the appointment of Ministers seems exactly right.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is deliberately provoking me. Only this afternoon the Church of England decided that it cannot even decide when it will decide on whether to have women bishops. Surely we should at least say that the bishops are allowed to remain in the House of Lords only if there are to be women bishops.

[Tristram Hunt]

That might be a successful way through the current difficulties in the Synod, so my hon. Friend should put that forward.

There are of course an awful lot of reservations about the Bill. We have touched on the issue of justiciability between the Commons and the Lords, a point to which the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire also referred, and convention versus statute. It also seems to me that there is no reason why a democratically elected second Chamber will not intervene on Finance Bills. If they are elected by taxpayers, why should they not have their say on Finance Bills? We do not seem to have sorted out the conflict resolution procedures that will be needed between the Houses.

The bigger problem relates to what happens in Scotland. If there is a vote in favour of an independent Scotland, the entire premise of this Bill will be undone, because the role of the House of Lords will have to take on a far more federal nature with regard to the interrelationship between the kingdoms of the Crown under the Crown in Parliament in the House of Lords, but perhaps the timeline will allow for all that.

On a broader point, when there is major constitutional reform there is always fear of the unknown. The Second Reform Act was described as a leap in the dark, and Thomas Carlyle wrote lurid pamphlets about its consequences. Actually, it resulted in a strengthening of Parliament and of the democratic process. Britain did not fall apart, and the same was true of the Third Reform Act and votes for women. It comes down to whether we believe in the purifying effects of democracy. Do Members believe in what we on the Labour side used to call “the good old cause”, which goes right back to Lilburne, Rainsborough, Paine and all the rest? The Bill has many problems but, ultimately, if we believe in democracy we have to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I nearly fell off my chair earlier today because I had an e-mail from a constituent on Lords reform. I think that that is the first one that I have had in all my years, despite the fact that I have held forth about the subject on many occasions. Fortunately, I agreed with her, so 100% of my constituents are in agreement with me.

I say to hon. Members who are opposed to the Bill that the current House of Lords is unsustainable. It has more than 800 Members, and the coalition agreement says that more should be appointed. At the rate that we are going, every member of the Liberal Democrat party will end up as a Member of the House of Lords. There are enormous problems with the numbers that we have at the moment, because appointment as the defining way of getting into the House of Lords leads to a heavy over-subscription of people from London and the south-east. Two hundred and seventy-three Members of the House of Lords come from London and the south-east, but just 38 come from the midlands and 74 from the north. It cannot possibly claim to be the representative House that it claimed to be seven centuries ago, when it had all the tenants-in-chief of the land available to advise the king.

[Jesse Norman]

Any reduction in the size of the upper House can be achieved without election. The hon. Gentleman is arguing not for election, but for a reduction in the size of the House.

[Chris Bryant]

I have only just started, to be fair. I wanted to start by saying that there are too many Members and, on top of that, too many who come from London and the south-east and too few who come from everywhere else. With a system of appointment, the people who do the appointing end up choosing people they already know, and that is why there is a heavy preponderance of people from London and the south-east. We also still have crooks, perjurers and arsonists up at the other end of the corridor. The hon. Gentleman will say, “Ah yes, but we can change all this through David Steel’s Bill,” but then we end up with a House of Lords that is solely appointed, and that is a House of patronage and power given to too few people, not to the people of the land.

We have the ludicrous situation of by-elections for hereditary peers. I say to all those who are opposed to the alternative vote system that we already have that system; it is used to elect people to the House of Lords. It is ironic that the last person who was elected in July last year, in a by-election that was not much commented on in the national media, was Lord Ashton of Hyde. I have never met that gentleman, and I suspect that few of us in this House have, but he got to stand as a hereditary peer only because of his original predecessor who was made a peer. That Lord Ashton of Hyde had been a Member of this House. He tried to get elected for Hyde several times and never managed to do so; but none the less, when he went to the Lords, he called himself Lord Ashton of Hyde. He went there because he had vacated his seat in the Commons two months before the vote on the Parliament Act 1911 to try to make sure that it could get through down at the other end of the building.

The system of having elected hereditaries in the Lords is completely bizarre, but it is even more bizarre to have the bishops of the Church of England there. There was an argument for that when we also had the bishops of Wales and Ireland, and some representation from Scotland, but it makes no sense for only one denomination representing one geographical area to be appointed to the House of Lords. I would move an amendment to get rid of all the bishops.

To those who argue in favour of the House of Lords on the basis of expertise, I would say that sometimes expertise is also a vested interest. Just take the case of two members of the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, which is considering a very sensitive issue in politics. One of them is Lord Gold. Most Members have probably never heard of him, but he happens to be a Conservative peer. He also happens to be a lawyer who specialises in litigation. Some people might say, “That’s great—he has expertise,” but I would say that he has a commercial interest in the legislation that he is advising on. Similarly, Lord Black of Brentwood, as the executive director of the Telegraph Group, has a direct financial and commercial interest in the legislation that is going through. That is why I say that, all too often, the commercial interests of people down at that end of the building turn it into a corrupt House.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I give way to the hon. Lady, because I know—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are in danger of questioning the nature and duties of Members of the other House and of going over the line in doing so, and I am sure that we would not want to do that.

[Laura Sandys]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not just about financial interests but could be about vested interests such as those of the British Medical Association, the National Union of Teachers or other organisations? Might people who are in the other House as a result of the status quo and have vested interests in the status quo therefore resist more radical change that might be proposed by this House?

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s point, because it was a very good one. A large number of those who spoke in the House of Lords in the debates on the Health and Social Care Bill had a personal, commercial, financial interest in supporting it. I am not questioning any individual, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the system of having expertise in the other House that many people advocate. Often, someone arrives in the other House with a degree of expertise and ends up staying there for another 30 years, which means that their expertise becomes extremely out of date. Furthermore, someone may have phenomenal expertise in medicine, but absolutely no understanding of the armed forces, or vice versa. Appointing people to the House of Lords on the basis of expertise is, I believe, a mistake.

I say to those who say that we need evolution, not revolution, that we have had two revolutions—one of them glorious and one of them perhaps inglorious. It was on the basis of those revolutions that many of the advances that we have had came about. We have had elected peers before. The 16 Scottish representative peers from 1707 to 1963 were elected at every general election. Similarly, the Irish peers were elected for life. We have had a mixed and evolving system. We introduced life peers. In 1963, we allowed women who had a peerage in their own right, suo jure, to sit in the House of Lords. I do not believe that this is the dramatic change that people claim; it is part of the evolution, not a revolution.

There are problems with the Bill, the most important of which was referred to by the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who intervened on me but has now left the Chamber. It is the question of powers. I do not believe that the original version or the present version of clause 2 on the respective powers of the two Houses will meet the day. There is a third way. I do not want the courts to be able to decide on a row between this House and the other House. The best way to proceed would be to have a concordat between the two Houses that forms part of our Standing Orders, which requires that there can be no change in our House without the agreement of the House of Lords and no change in the House of Lords without the agreement of the House of Commons. Perhaps, as one hon. Member suggested earlier, that should rely on a two-thirds majority.

I think that a 15-year term is far too long. Six or nine years might be better, but we can debate that. I will also support 100% election. I say to my Liberal Democrat—I hate to say this word—friends, that I have long campaigned on this matter and I think that there is more likelihood of getting the reform if we have a referendum and if we ensure that the Bill is debated properly, because we are going to have to use the Parliament Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I do not believe that he has, but that is an argument to which we can return in Committee.

The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) compared the Deputy Prime Minister with Andy Murray. I think that, if anything, he is more like Jonny Marray, in that he is a champion doubles partner, and on that basis the coalition has been succeeding.

Let me now deal with what I think is one of the most important issues on which we shall have to reach a conclusion tomorrow. There are those, predominantly in the official Opposition, who will vote for the end but not for the means, namely the programme motion. I have long argued, as has my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, that programme motions should, wherever possible, be arranged by agreement. They should be for the convenience of the House: they should enable debate, not restrict it. That is the way in which we have managed things in this Parliament so far.

I repeatedly asked the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) how much more time he wanted. He has 10 days for the Committee stage in addition to the two days for Second Reading and the two days for Report, 14 days in all. I asked him repeatedly how many more days he wanted, but answer came there none. The Opposition cannot say how many days they want, because they decided to vote against the programme motion before it had been published or even suggested. I believe that 14 days out of a total of 88—only 88 days are available to the Government for legislative business during a whole year—are sufficient. If the right hon. Gentleman has a proposal, let him come up with it; but if, as I suspect, he has no proposal whatsoever other than a determination to oppose, he is doing his own argument a great disservice.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman just said that his fundamental principle was that a programme motion should be allowed only when it was for the convenience of the House. If he has not learned from today’s debate that this programme motion is not for the convenience of the House, should he not withdraw it?

[Mr Heath]

I think that that remains to be seen, but if we are still on clause 1 after 12 days, the House will not have done the Bill justice in its scrutiny.

I have no doubt that the tomorrow’s debate will be argued just as keenly as today’s. I think, and the Government think, that this measure is long overdue, and the polls show that the British public want it. It puts into effect the modest proposition that those who make our laws should be elected by our people, and I commend it to the House.

EU Council

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The coalition agreement makes another commitment in relation to treaty change: that the Government will campaign to abolish the ludicrous caravanserai between Brussels and Strasbourg, which we would all agree should be abolished. I am absolutely certain that the Prime Minister has got absolutely nowhere with that and possibly has not yet even mentioned it to the new French President, so why should people trust him when he promises more renegotiation and has not even managed to secure the one thing he is committed to?

[The Prime Minister]

I am still waiting for my apology, which I notice I have not yet got. Perhaps there will be a few more questions first. The hon. Gentleman will know that in order to deal with the problem of the two Parliaments we need a treaty change, so he should want to bring it on.