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.

G20 Summit

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. The section of the communiqué about corruption is indeed important, and all the countries that have signed up to it should make sure that they put it in place. One of the strengths of the G20 is that, because it is not bringing together countries that necessarily share all the same democratic or human rights values, it is an opportunity to try to push some of those agendas with colleagues sitting round the table.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister jests about what words are allowed and not allowed in this Chamber; on the Opposition Benches, we would quite like to hear one word more often from his lips: “growth”.

Further to the question from the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), the problem of corruption in Russia is manifest. On 7 March, this House unanimously agreed a resolution, supported by the Government, calling on them to introduce legislative proposals to make sure that those involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky and the corruption that he unveiled were banned from this country. When will those legislative proposals be introduced?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the word I am waiting for from him, because he introduced a point of order claiming that I had misled the House, is “sorry”. To be fair to him, he has said sorry to everybody else—you, Mr Speaker, I think, and to the House in general—but the person he accused of doing something wrong he has yet to say “sorry” to. So, until I get that apology, I think I will leave off the answers.

G8 and NATO Summits

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I think that my hon. Friend is entirely right. Some people imply—it was implied in the question from the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling)—that German stubbornness is unreasonable. It is understandable. Obviously, for the success of the eurozone we need everyone to adopt approaches such as those I have described in terms of monetary policy, eurobonds and the rest of it, but it is important to understand people’s motivations and difficulties, because they are what lie behind the current impasse.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is good that the Russians shared in the motion on Syria, but even if we leave aside the rigged elections in the Russian Federation, there are still major human rights abuses in Russia. For instance, Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s second trial has been universally condemned by every international organisation in the world and, indeed, by many organisations in Russia. He tried to secure an appeal, but it was turned down only last week by Judge Alexander Voronov, who is not an ordinary judge but a military judge in the military chamber of the Supreme Court. When the decision was handed down that there could be no appeal, it was done on the Russian armed forces website. Does that not show that Russia has a great distance to go before it can really embrace being part of the humanity of nations?

Debate on the Address

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I take my hon. Friend’s point, although I believe the greater problem would be legislative gridlock if too much legitimacy were given to the House of Lords. The simple fact is that over the course of the past century, these Houses have managed a pretty effective balance without crippling government. The position that we have arrived at still needs reform, but very careful reform.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have to consider two things hand in hand, the composition of the House of Lords and its function. Although I am passionately in favour of an elected second Chamber, one of my criticisms of the draft Bill is that clause 2 will not reinforce the primacy of this Chamber. Some kind of concordat would have to be agreed by both Houses and written into their Standing Orders. Does he accept, though, that the current situation is unsustainable? We already have far too many Members down the other end of the building, and if there is no reform, there will be another 200. There will be more than 1,000 Members, the vast majority of them appointed by party leaders on a party Whip. Surely that is unsustainable.

[Mr Davis]

I agree with the last point, but the hon. Gentleman should not let the best be the enemy of the good.

I will finish my points about the Lords, because I want to talk about two other significant issues of justice and freedom. For me, the test is to look back and see what would have happened in the past decade if we had introduced whatever new reform we will come up with. As the Deputy Prime Minister will be only too conscious, in the past decade the Lords have stopped the curbing of jury trials and a number of other measures, including the extension of detention without charge. That would not have happened if we had had too politically similar a House of Lords. When the House considers the matter in some detail, my test will be whether a reform will achieve the same check on the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Baldry]

Since the general election the Labour party has engaged in a wonderful exercise in propounding the motif that cuts are being made too far and too fast. In his autobiography, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer responsibly acknowledges the mistakes made by the last Labour Government. Opposition Members, however, have tried to develop a line that will enable them simultaneously to go around the City of London saying “We are being sensible and responsible about the deficit and about the need to reduce public spending” and, when campaigning, to present the impression privately, on the doorstep of every household in the country, that, given their own way, they would not reduce any individual item of public expenditure. That is a circle that the Opposition cannot square, and until they get real in explaining to the country and the markets how they will actually tackle the budget deficit, they will not be taken seriously as an Opposition, let alone as a Government in waiting.

We must never forget that the present Government inherited a budget deficit of 11%—bigger than Greece’s, bigger than Spain’s, and bigger than Portugal’s. We all know that if we do not deal properly with our debts and with the nation’s deficit it will be impossible to keep interest rates low, and that, quite apart from the benefit that low interest rates provide for businesses and those paying mortgages, they offer us the best prospects of getting out of our present difficult economic situation.

The Government and the Chancellor inherited a deeply dysfunctional economy in which, all too often, the taxes generated by the financial and property sectors in the south paid for higher public spending in the north. As Sir Mervyn King so tellingly testified in his speech last week, it was an economy in which the City had been poorly policed, and in which growth was too dependent on debt. Making clear that we intended to have a credible fiscal plan has helped us in Britain to maintain our top international credit rating and has brought interest rates to record lows, making family mortgages and business loans cheaper. Sticking to the deficit plan means that, having inherited a deficit larger than those of Spain or Greece, we have interest rates similar to those in Germany. Indeed, the IMF’s latest forecast for the UK expects it to grow faster than France or Germany. In considering where we are now, we should not forget that the recent Budget cut taxes for 24 million working people.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tony Baldry]

I love the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)! He left the Chamber for a considerable period, has been back for two seconds, and now wants to intervene. However, because he is very supportive on Church matters, I am happy to give way to him.

[Chris Bryant]

So much excitement was being engendered by the hon. Gentleman that I felt the need to return to the Chamber. Then I started to listen, which is where I made my mistake. I think the hon. Gentleman said that the present Government had cut interest rates. Can he tell us when they did so? My understanding is that they have been entirely flat since they changed under a Labour rather than a Conservative Government.

[Tony Baldry]

The hon. Gentleman was so excited by my speech that he misheard me. I made no reference to the Government’s cutting interest rates. What I said was that the Government’s financial and economic policies had enabled us, and were still enabling us, to keep interest rates low, while also ensuring that our interest rates compared with those of Germany. I have absolutely no doubt that if we followed the economic policies advocated by Opposition Front Benchers, we would soon see interest rates, including mortgage interest rates, soaring as a consequence.

The Government have taken 2 million people out of tax, they have continued to freeze council tax, and—as I have already observed—they have cut corporation tax so that we can compete with the rest of the world. Moreover, notwithstanding the challenges at home, Britain is meeting its commitments overseas. We are behaving as one would expect of a permanent member of the UN Security Council, honouring our obligations in Afghanistan, seeking to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation—particularly with Iran—and helping to bring greater stability to the horn of Africa. We are supporting democrats in Libya, and, through the Department for International Development, we are helping to tackle poverty around the world.

We should be proud that Britain is sticking to its aid promises. We are a friend to the world’s poorest, and giving aid represents the best of British values. Some 40 years after they first promised to give 0.7% of their national income in aid, rich countries are less than halfway there. Among the major economies, only we in the UK are on target to meet our commitments. Some of the more Poujadist elements of the press claim that public support for aid is diminishing. I suspect that that is because some two thirds of the public think that we spend up to 20 times more on foreign aid than we actually do. Once people know that our aid budget is just over a single penny in every pound spent by the Government, they are much more supportive.

Understandably, the Session of Parliament since the general election has been unusually long, but it is still impressive that the Government have passed more than 30 main programme Bills since the election to help to reduce the UK’s budget deficit and reform our public services. Their programme has been guided by the three core values of responsibility, fairness and freedom. The new Session will be shorter, so it will provide scope for fewer Bills. I do not think that there was any doubt on the doorsteps about what our constituents want us to focus on. They want us to continue to get the economy going, continue to improve the NHS, and continue to sort out welfare and education; and, importantly, they want us to demonstrate that we are on the side of those who are working hard and doing the best they can for their families.

One of the best-kept secrets of the last Budget is that the Chancellor raised personal allowances—the amount that people can earn before being taxed—so that 24 million middle-earning taxpayers will keep more of their money, and, from next April, 2 million low-paid people will not pay income tax at all. I can tell those who call for tax cuts that this year we have already made the largest tax cuts for more than a decade. I think everyone would agree that we should be doing all that we can to help families who are trying to do the best for themselves.

Of course we need to focus on jobs and economic growth. I am very glad that the proposals in a report by my constituent Adrian Beecroft for streamlining of the rules that make it hard for businesses to hire and fire employees are to be taken up. Redundancy rules, employment tribunals and rules about unfair dismissal all need to be changed, as Adrian Beecroft’s well-researched and well-argued report clearly demonstrates. We should be doing everything possible to encourage employers to expand and employ more people.

It is good news that the Government will reduce burdens on businesses by repealing unnecessary legislation and legislating to limit the state inspection of businesses. It is also good news that they will reform competition law in order to promote enterprise and fair markets. I think that many businesses will welcome the news that there is to be strengthened regulation of the financial services sector, and that the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking are to be implemented.

I also welcome the proposals relating to pensions. I think everyone agrees on the need to modernise the pensions system and reform the state pension, and on the importance of creating a fair and sustainable foundation for private saving. Governments must always seek to be on the side of those who save for retirement. I do not think that anyone seriously believes that it is possible to avoid reforming public service pensions in line with the recommendations of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission.

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers, I particularly welcome the news that a draft Bill is to be published to modernise adult care and support in England. The health White Paper of July 2010 promised legislation on adult social care in a second session of the present Parliament. We have all had plenty of time in which to read and digest the Dilnot report, which recommended a system under which people would pay the first chunk of nursing care costs and the state would pay after that. Given our increasingly ageing population, we need clarity, and cross-party talks have been taking place for a long time.

I also welcome the news that it is to be a draft Bill. Given such a major overhaul of social care legislation that needs to stand the test of time, and given the number of Select Committee reports on the issue, it is vital that we have an opportunity to get it right by co-operating with the Government, the Opposition and, indeed, every party in the House to produce legislation that seeks to achieve the right outcomes for everyone concerned.

[Tony Baldry]

I think we all want a long-term solution, which is why it is sensible for a draft Bill to be published so that everyone can agree the way forward, and so that when a Bill is presented to the House it has all-party support.

May I say in my capacity as Second Church Estates Commissioner that I welcome the introduction of a Bill to reduce the burdens on charities by enabling them to claim additional payments on small donations? Many Members of Parliament are involved in charities, perhaps as trustees or patrons. Church groups often rely on Sunday collections and small giving by large numbers of people. This move will allow extra support for charities.

Like all Members of Parliament, a fair amount of my constituency casework involves helping families with disabled children and children with special educational needs, so I greatly welcome the proposals in the Queen’s Speech to introduce measures to improve provision for such children, and the arrangements for supporting children in family law cases and reforming court processes for children in care. That is important, painstaking and detailed work that should improve the lives of many children.

I do not think too much should be read into the fact that the Queen’s Speech does not contain a specific proposal for a hybrid Bill on High Speed 2. The matter is now before the High Court, which is having to consider several applications on judicial review involving points of law on both the process and substance of the HS2 project. Notwithstanding any judicial review proceedings, however, I continue to hope that the Government will reflect that the economic case for HS2 simply does not stack up.

It is clear that in this Session of Parliament the Government will continue to strive for smaller government, freer competition and greater international trade, and they will continue to pursue policies that have been proven to work in the past and that will also work in the future.

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On 25 April, I told the House that the Leveson inquiry had published certain information regarding meetings that had been held between Rupert Murdoch and the Prime Minister. I believed at the time that that was the case, but it has subsequently turned out not to be true. I have, of course, apologised to Lord Justice Leveson, but I thought I should take this opportunity to apologise to the House as well. I hope the apology will be accepted. I had no intention of misleading the House; that was purely inadvertent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Bryant, for your point of order and for putting that apology on the record.

Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The motivation is probably that the Opposition would rather do anything than get out and campaign for Ken Livingstone. I am willing to keep them here as long as they like. They must answer for their own motivation, but that is my guess.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The one fact that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State cannot get away from is the fact that James Murdoch knew precisely, word for word, what the Secretary of State was going to say before he said it, before the House knew on three occasions and before commercial operators in opposition to Murdoch knew it. Is that not a clear example of collusion between the Government and of a shabby deal between the Prime Minister and the Murdochs?

[The Prime Minister]

While we are on the subject of people who say things before they should, I would have thought that when the hon. Gentleman stands up in the House, he should make an apology. He stood up last week and claimed a whole series of facts about meetings that I had had with Rupert Murdoch based on privileged access that he had had—and he is not denying it—to this inquiry, and the facts turned out to be wrong. A man of honour would stand up and apologise.

Party Funding

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

The suggestion has been made, but, strangely, answer has come there none.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Is it not a bit shabby of the Prime Minister to engineer a situation in which he will not have to answer a single question in the House on his unfair Budget for four weeks, and has not had to answer a single question in the House this afternoon because he has sent his marionette along instead? It is particularly important that this is about the Prime Minister’s judgment. When we look at Coulson, Brooks, Werritty and, now, the Cruddas scandal, it is clear that it is a question of his judgment. How did this Government become so casually corrupt so fast?

[Mr Maude]

This Prime Minister has not appointed two Cabinet Ministers twice and had to fire them both twice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I shall count that as part of the consultation exercise. It is a point that has been made by others about the disclosures that Ministers make. We will weigh that up when formulating our proposals.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly support the idea of a statutory register of lobbyists, but surely it must include the full-time people who do it on behalf of their companies in-house. If we do not know whether the head of lobbying for BP, Shell or whoever else is coming in to see a Minister, we have not really brought about transparency, have we?

[Mr Harper]

The point that the hon. Gentleman makes about those who lobby for the companies they work for, as opposed to third parties, has been made by others and we will weigh that up. If a person from an individual company comes to see a Minister and the Minister discloses that they have had that meeting, as they do, it is clear on whose behalf they are lobbying. The situation that we are trying to deal with is one where we do not know on whose behalf someone is lobbying. That is the reason for our initial proposals.

European Council

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and associate myself with his words on Somalia and Serbia?

Let me turn first to the pressing issue of the continuing violence in Syria. The pictures and testimony coming out of Homs in the past few days, and again today, are truly horrific, with women and fathers telling of their children being murdered in front of their eyes. Responsibility for the brutal repression and murder of innocent people lies firmly at the door of President Assad and his regime. It is appalling—I agree with the Prime Minister on this—that the Syrian Government have so far even refused requests for humanitarian access. In this context, it is even more important that Britain puts pressure on the international community to back a United Nations resolution and address this desperate situation.

May I ask the Prime Minister a few questions? First, will he update the House specifically on what he believes the UK and the EU are able to do to support the Arab League and the joint special envoy in his efforts somehow to broker an end to the bloodshed? Secondly, what steps are now in train to strengthen sanctions against the Assad regime, including through the proper enforcement of the Arab League sanctions? Thirdly, given that the Russian Government are responsible for vetoing the last UN resolution on Syria, does the Prime Minister agree that they will be judged by their actions rather than their words on Syria? No doubt he will be speaking to President-elect Putin in the coming days. What will he be telling him in those conversations? I hope—I am sure that I speak for the whole House and the country in saying this—that he will make it clear to President-elect Putin that action is necessary and that the Russian position is frankly unacceptable.

Let me turn to other matters discussed at the European Council, particularly jobs and growth. At his press conference on Friday, the Prime Minister was uncharacteristically shy—indeed, totally silent—about the main event of the summit: the signing of the fiscal compact. He did at least mention it today at the end of his statement, although I am very struck by the fact that in the written copy that was kindly distributed to me before he delivered it, the word “treaty” was used, but he could not bring himself to use that word. Of course, the reason he was uncharacteristically coy in his press conference is that his veto was not a veto; the treaty has gone ahead. Can he confirm that for all his claims, both the European Court of Justice and the Commission will be fully involved in implementing the treaty? Can he tell us how he will find out about the result of the meetings, in which a whole variety of economic questions that will affect the UK will be discussed? Apparently, his spokesman was asked about this last Wednesday, and the best that he could manage was to say, “The Prime Minister may not be in the room, but he will be in the building.”

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

He’s Elvis!

[Edward Miliband]

Yes, he is Elvis. I do not think that the spokesman’s comment is very reassuring.

It is a matter of record that the Prime Minister spent Thursday complaining that he felt frustrated because he did not feel that the other 25 leaders were taking enough notice of him as they prepared to sign the new treaty. However, on Friday, he claimed that in less than 24 hours, his powers of persuasion had once again triumphed:

“The communiqué has been fundamentally rewritten in line with our demands.”

After the experience of the veto, I am sure that he will forgive us all for being a little sceptical about his claims.

Let us examine the Prime Minister’s claims. He said that big strides forward were clear from the communiqué on energy, micro-enterprises, the single market and reducing trade barriers. However, will he confirm that the commitment on the energy market was in the conclusions of last February’s Council, that the commitments on the single market and trade simply echo those following the October 2011 Council, and that the supposed progress on micro-enterprises was in the conclusions of last December’s Council?

Listening to the Prime Minister, I had a sense of groundhog day. I then realised why. He sent the same letter to the European Council a year ago. Believe it or not—of course, we do believe it—he claimed the same triumph then:

“I organised a letter…making the case for action on growth, on deregulation, on completing the single market, on extending it to services… I think this has had a real impact”.

The people behind him are not looking amused. If last year’s letter had such an impact, why did he have to send it again? For the avoidance of doubt, I will place last year’s letter in the Library of the House, because it will probably be next year’s letter as well. For all the Prime Minister’s slapping himself on the back, the reality is that not one job has been created, not one family helped and not one business boosted. Why does he not learn the lesson that empty claims of a European triumph lose him credibility at home and influence abroad?

Why did the Prime Minister not press those countries with fiscal headroom at the summit to stimulate growth in Europe? Why does he not lead by example and sort out the jobs crisis here at home? He said on Friday and repeated today that there was not an air of crisis about the euro. Will he tell the House whether he thinks that a sustainable solution has been put in place for the euro area, because that is one of the most important long-term issues that we face and that the European economy faces?

The reality is that we have a Prime Minister who is isolated and without influence. He is unable to argue for jobs and growth because of his own failure at home. He achieved nothing for Britain at this summit. For all the good it has done us, he could have given the summit a miss and gone horse riding instead.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The roadblocks come in two forms. First, there is the fact that the services directive has not been fully implemented, and some countries have been blocking it. Those countries—Germany is among them, I think—are now undergoing infraction proceedings by the European Commission. The second part of the problem concerns the number of regulated professions in Europe that countries continue to regulate separately rather than open up to competition. Britain has a relatively good record on both the services directive and getting rid of regulated professions but we need to keep up the pressure.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Was there any discussion of the European arrest warrant? I ask because the Prime Minister will know that a lot of his Back Benchers want Britain to withdraw from it, whereas the Liberal Democrats want no change at all. If he insists on riding two horses at once, may I suggest that he campaign for reform rather than withdrawal?

[The Prime Minister]

This was a European Council devoted to discussion of the economy and foreign affairs, so there was no discussion of the European arrest warrant.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I am not in a position to give my hon. Friend a precise date. What I suggest, as he will appreciate that the issue is outside my departmental area, is that I write to him when I have ascertained whether we have further detailed information on it.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Surely we are going to get many more convictions only if there is much more effective co-operation between prosecutors and police in this country and elsewhere. Given that many such gangs are elsewhere in the European Union, is not the European arrest warrant a vital part of the necessary armoury? Will the Attorney-General tell his Back Benchers that he is not going to step outside the European arrest warrant, even if they want to do so?

[The Attorney-General]

I have no doubt at all that mechanisms for co-operation throughout the European Union and, indeed, elsewhere can be very useful in the apprehension of criminals, particularly in this field. How that should best be carried out is, if I may say to the hon. Gentleman, ultimately I suppose a matter for this House, if it ever comes up for review.