Commons Financial Privilege
Chris Bryant Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Leader of the House if he will make a statement on the Government’s review of the financial privilege of the Commons under Lord Strathclyde.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)
On Monday, the House of Lords rejected a financial measure that had been approved three times by the elected House of Commons. We are clear that that raises constitutional issues that need to be examined carefully. We need to ensure—[Interruption.]
Chris Grayling
We need to ensure that we have arrangements in place that protect the ability of elected Governments to secure business that has the support of the elected House.
Yesterday the Government announced that we are in the process of setting up a review to examine how to protect the ability of elected Governments to secure their business in Parliament. The review will consider in particular how to secure the decisive role of the elected House of Commons in relation to its primacy on financial matters and on secondary legislation. The review will be led by Lord Strathclyde, supported by a small panel of experts.
The relationship between the Commons and the Lords is extremely important. When conventions that govern that relationship are put in doubt, it is right that we review that. Clearly, the House will be fully updated when more details of the review have been agreed.
Chris Bryant
It is clear that the Government intend to give the House of Lords a kicking, but they should remember, as they fashion this pretend constitutional crisis, that the vast majority of people in this country applauded the Lords on Monday, because the measure was not in the Government’s manifesto. Does the Leader of the House see no irony at all in getting a Member of the House of Lords—and, for that matter, a hereditary peer—to review the financial privilege of the House of Commons? Is this the right person for the task? After all, in 1999, Lord Strathclyde said of the convention that the House of Lords did not strike down statutory instruments:
“I declare this convention dead.”
That same day, he and the Lords voted down two Labour Government statutory instruments. Now he thinks that it is an utter disgrace to do so. Is there one rule for Tory regulations and another for Labour ones? Is he now a convert or frankly just a hypocrite?
Mr Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] I am perfectly capable of dealing with these matters. I certainly do not require any sedentary chuntering, however well-intentioned, from hon. Members. Their interventions are superfluous. The shadow Leader of the House should withdraw that term.
Chris Bryant
I withdraw that term unreservedly, Mr Speaker; I presume that he is a convert.
Why are there no representatives of other parties or of the House of Commons on the review panel? Would it not be better for this House to conduct its own inquiry into the operation of secondary legislation? Could not the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, whose admirable Chairman is in the Chamber now, do the job far better?
Is there not a far simpler means of guaranteeing the financial privilege of the Commons? The Government should stop relying on secondary legislation and introduce properly scrutinised primary legislation as money Bills that are covered by the Parliament Act instead. In all honesty, is it not a disgrace that measures affecting 3.2 million people should be decided in a 90-minute debate with no opportunity for amendment? There is a very simple principle here: money Bills do not receive scrutiny in the Lords, so they get extra time in the House of Commons; secondary legislation does not get much time in the Commons, so it does receive consideration in the Lords.
Does the Leader of the House not realise that the Lords had the power they did on Monday only because the Government tried to sidestep scrutiny by using secondary legislation dependent on the Tax Credits Act 2002, section 66 of which specifies that changes to tax credit rates must be approved by both Houses of Parliament? As things stand, the Government rely on hundreds of Acts that have the same provision. Does the Leader of the House intend to make retrospective amendments to each and every one of those Acts, and will he use the Parliament Act to drive that through?
We have very few checks to Executive power in this country. If we do not protect our constitution, it is not worth the paper it is not written on. There is a real danger that if Parliament as a whole lets the Government of the day dismantle every check and balance, they will no longer be governing by consent—and that really would be a constitutional crisis.
Chris Grayling
I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman’s experience as a parliamentarian, but he will not be surprised to learn that I tend not to anticipate the outcomes of reviews before they have even started. I said a moment ago that we would publish full details of the terms of reference and the full review panel in due course, so he will have to wait to see the full detail when we bring it to this House. There is no restraint on any Committee of this House from carrying out any inquiry that it wishes to conduct, within its remit. Lastly, on primary legislation, it is a simple fact that tax credits are classified as a benefit. They cannot be included in a money Bill. You, Mr Speaker, would not certify a Bill containing a reference to tax credits as a money Bill, so I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
Points of Order
Chris Bryant Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House has pointedly refused to answer any questions about the terms of reference of the panel of experts, its members and whether they will be paid, or whether they will be able to take evidence. He said that he would make those details available in the fullness of time. He has chosen not to make a written ministerial statement or an oral statement to the House, so we cannot presume that he will make the details available to the House before he makes them available to the rest of the country. I wonder whether he might now like to leap to his feet to point out that he will make all the details available in the Library.
Mr Speaker
The Leader of the House is entitled to rise to his feet, but he is not obliged to do so. I think that it would be fair to say that these matters, as far as I can discern, are under consideration. Conclusions have not been reached. The detail is not yet known. It will be decided in due course. The request is that the House be informed first. I think that it would be a reasonable supposition that if an important part of the subject matter is the prerogatives of the House of Commons, it will occur to the Leader of the House first to notify the House of Commons of the particulars.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Bryant Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)
The proposed changes to Standing Orders would mean that clauses or schedules that Mr Speaker considers to relate exclusively to England, or to England and Wales, disregarding any minor or consequential effects for other parts of the United Kingdom, will be subject to the new legislative process.
Chris Grayling
Minor or consequential, and consequential. This will include any potential spending effects. Any decision on spending that will have a material impact on the allocation of funding to the devolved Administrations will always be taken by a vote of the whole House of Commons through either the estimates process or a money resolution.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 26 October—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Tuesday 27 October— Remaining stages of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill.
Wednesday 28 October—Opposition day (8th allotted day). There will be a debate on steel, followed by a debate on health.
Thursday 29 October—Back-Bench business day. A motion in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) relating to a House business committee, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the distributional effect of proposed reforms to tax credits.
Friday 30 October—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 2 November will include:
Monday 2 November—Second Reading of the Housing and Planning Bill.
Tuesday 3 November—Opposition day (9th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Wednesday 4 November—Remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill.
Thursday 5 November—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 6 November —Private Members’ Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the week commencing 26 October will be:
Thursday 29 October—General debate on the future of the green investment bank.
Finally, Mr Speaker, may I associate myself with your very gracious remarks earlier about Michael Meacher? He was a great figure in this House. Even those of us who very much disagreed with his policies respected him as a great parliamentarian, a man who made a major contribution to our public life. He will be much missed by his friends on both sides of this House.
Chris Bryant
I, too, pay tribute to Michael Meacher. To be honest, few Members can have had such an impact as he had in his years as Environment Minister. He was an indefatigable stalwart who battled away in the intellectual trenches of politics for nearly five decades in this place. In his last speech in this House, he delivered an absolutely excoriating attack on the Government’s economic policy, and he ended with the words:
“So much for the Government’s…‘long-term plan.’”—[Official Report, 4 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 819.]
Our thoughts warmly go out to his family and to all those who knew him well.
May we have a debate about how we celebrate anniversaries in this House? Yesterday, we completely ignored Trafalgar day, despite it being the 210th anniversary of one of the United Kingdom’s greatest naval triumphs. This Sunday, St Crispin’s day, will see the 600th anniversary of the battle of Agincourt at which several hon. Members of this House fought, though not, contrary to rumour, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). The Speaker, Thomas Chaucer, brought along 12 men at arms and 37 archers. I think that you, Mr Speaker, might feel that you need them for your press conferences. Next year is the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death.
It was an immense pleasure this week to see the band of the Brigade of Gurkhas beat the retreat in the Speaker’s Court in proper recognition of their 200 years of valour and 13 Victoria Crosses that they have won, but should we not in Parliament do better at recognising these important national milestones?
Talking of beating the retreat, when will the Government beat the retreat on the cuts to tax credits? I can offer them two opportunities coming up very soon. There will be a vote in this House on Tuesday and another on Thursday. Before the Leader of the House gives us a whole load of tripe about financial privilege in the Lords, may I remind him that this is all his fault—his personal fault? The Government could perfectly easily have introduced these cuts in a Bill. That would have been a money Bill, which you, Mr Speaker, would have certificated as a money Bill and which we would have been able to look at line by line, but the Lords would not have been able to look at it because it was a money Bill. But oh no, the Leader of the House is too clever by half. He decided that a statutory instrument was best, so there would be just one-and-a-half hour’s debate on it and no amendments allowed. Unfortunately, the only downside—oh dear!—is that it has to go to the Lords. So he has been hoist on his own petard. In the end, every single one of us here knows that some way or other the Government will beat the retreat. Tory Back Benchers want him to retreat, and even The Spectator today says that they have lost sight of the human factor, so retreat the Government will. Will the Leader of the House just tell us when it will happen? I promise that we will not crow.
I warmly congratulate Mr Alex Newton on being appointed the new editor of Hansard and pay tribute to the retiring editor, Lorraine Sutherland, who had to cope with John Prescott’s contributions in this House. Members will know that Hansard is not exactly a verbatim record—thank goodness. It corrects repetitions and mistakes, so may I suggest that Hansard starts by re-examining the Prime Minister’s remarks yesterday. He said that he was “delighted” to be bringing in the tax credit cuts. Delighted! He cannot possibly have meant that. There must surely be a heart in this man.
On steel, the Prime Minister said:
“We will do everything we can to help”.—[Official Report, 20 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 956.]
What he actually meant to say was, “We will do absolutely nothing to help.” He also said yesterday that the Government intend to relax the Sunday trading laws. When will that be debated and when will it be tabled? What Bill will it be in? I ask that simply because many of us on the Labour Benches, and I suspect on the Government Benches too, want to keep Sunday special.
I thank the Leader of the House for granting extra time for psychoactive substances this week—sorry, I mean the Psychoactive Substances Bill. I noticed last week that the Leader of the House did not answer a single question that I asked, so I warn him to take notes today, as, from now on, I will be writing to him after each session for answers to any questions that remain unanswered.
On 25 November, we shall have the autumn statement together with the comprehensive spending review. It is surely incumbent on us to scrutinise public spending diligently, including public spending cuts. Will the Leader of the House set aside three full days for a proper debate about the implications of the Government’s cuts? Of course the deficit must come down. We have to live within our means, but we will oppose any measures that are unfair, counterproductive or false economies.
You will know, Mr Speaker, that the Public Accounts Committee published a special report this week on the conduct of the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People when he was a member of that Committee in the last Parliament and leaked a draft report to Wonga. The matter stands committed to the Privileges Committee for a decision on whether it is gross contempt of the House—or at least it would if the Government had set up the Privileges Committee. Will the Leader of the House tell us why it has not yet been set up? Is it because the Prime Minister knew perfectly well that the issue was coming along the track? When the noble Lord Touhig was found to have asked for a draft copy of a Select Committee report some years ago, he immediately resigned as a Parliamentary Private Secretary pending the decision of the then Standards and Privileges Committee, which later suspended him from the House. Will the Leader of the House explain why the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People has not done the same?
With the opening of the new Bond movie next week, will Ministers celebrate the British film industry by auditioning for the next film? I can just see the Health Secretary, who will doubtless be playing Dr No. The Home Secretary will make a cameo appearance in her steel-tipped kitten heels as Rosa Klebb, and I can just imagine the Culture Secretary jumping across roofs in a fine exhibition of parkour on Her Majesty’s secret service. The Chancellor would look very fetching as Miss Moneypenny, and I gather that he is quite a cunning linguist—that is from “Tomorrow Never Dies”, Mr Speaker—and the Mayor of London’s career is surely proof positive that you only live twice. As for the villain running an evil media empire, intent on world domination—well, Members can pick their own. I note from the press that the spectre of dismissal is hanging over the Leader of the House, but perhaps he can take a quantum of solace in the fact that it would be the Work and Pensions Secretary who would get the part of the smooth-pated Oddjob, who comes to a grisly electrocuted end.
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman mentioned anniversaries and he is right to say that we should celebrate all the work that the Gurkhas have done on behalf of this country. I think that he and the Leader of the Opposition will join me in recognising another, rather sadder anniversary today, as it is the 50th anniversary of the tragedy at Aberfan, a terrible event that led to the deaths of 116 children and 28 adults. It is a blot on our history and something that we should never forget. I hope that everyone in the House will remember those tragic events today.
The hon. Gentleman is, as we know, highly regarded among those on his Benches for his knowledge and understanding of the procedures of the House, so I am slightly mystified by his comments about tax credits and legislation. He will know that tax credits do not come within the scope of a Finance Bill, so I am a little puzzled by his assertion that we should have put the measure into a Finance Bill. He will also know that even if this House were to resolve to change that process, it would open up a range of additional questions about the role of the House of Lords and whether they should debate Finance Bills. I am surprised that he appears not to understand the processes of this House and I advise him perhaps to consult the Clerks afterwards who can put him right, I am sure.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of tax credits more generally. It is, of course, a matter that has been carefully debated in this House and voted on twice by MPs in the past few weeks. The measure has been supported by the House twice and it is interesting that the deputy leader of the Labour party did not turn up to oppose the changes, which we believe should now go forward and be put into action.
I suppose we should not be surprised that there is a degree of uncertainty on the Labour Benches, because we have had some interesting reports about what is going on. A message is being passed to me from a person with a vested interest, as is often the case for the Leader of the Opposition. A member of the Labour party has said to me:
“Farce doesn’t begin to describe our position any more. It’s the political equivalent of all the slapstick staples rolled into one. The Three Stooges pie fight. Stan Laurel stuck up a ladder. The house collapsing on Buster Keaton.”
That is a message for me from Simon of Rochdale. You know, Mr Speaker, the people of Rochdale are wise and that is why, I think, they elected him as their Labour Member of Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman talked about steel. We are very clear. We are doing everything we can to support the steel industry in a difficult period for the workers and all those who live in those communities. We have looked at changing the rules on procurement. We are working to provide financial support. We are in discussions with the European Commission about what support we are able to provide. We have raised the issue of dumping with the Chinese this week. We will do everything we can to support our steel industry, but I remind the Opposition that it was when they were in government that steel output in this country halved, and manufacturing in this country almost halved as a share of our national income. Under this Government manufacturing is growing and the steel industry has held up in output terms and has employed more people, so I do not think we should take lessons from the Opposition as we work very hard to address an extremely difficult set of circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman raised questions about Sunday trading. That is a matter that will be debated in the House shortly.
Points of Order
Chris Bryant Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House was absolutely right to refer earlier to the tragedy of Aberfan, the anniversary of which was yesterday, but may I gently point out to him that it took place 49 years ago, not 50? The 50th anniversary will be next year, and I hope, having heard his comments, that we will be commemorating it properly in the House at that time.
The Leader of the House also made a mistake about the Standards Committee and the Privileges Committee. This is an important matter, because several pieces of business urgently need to go to the Privileges Committee. He said that the membership of the Standards Committee and that of the Privileges Committee were the same, but that is not true. The Standards Committee is already set up, although it has just lost a member. A Conservative Member had to resign because they had not fully declared their earnings. That Committee has lay members, but the Privileges Committee does not. There is absolutely no reason why the Privileges Committee could not have been set up already, and it is the job of the Leader of the House to make sure that that happens as a matter of urgency.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I used the word “mirror”, and the point I was making was that the Standards Committee has now moved from having 10 members to having seven. The debate with the new Chairman of the Privileges Committee has been about whether we also reduce the membership of that Committee from 10 to seven. That will happen, in order to mirror the membership of the Standards Committee, which now has seven parliamentary members. The Committee will now be set up, and it clearly has some work to do.
Standing Orders (Public Business)
Chris Bryant Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
I have looked carefully at that issue, as my hon. Friend knows. I have not identified measures outside the estimates process that create a Barnett consequential. I have been very clear in the proposed changes to Standing Orders that the estimates process remains outside the proposals. I have asked officials to continue to monitor this matter over the period leading up to the review and to produce information that can be presented to the House in due course. I give my hon. Friend and the House a commitment that if we identify a problem in this area, I will return to it as part of the review.
I intend this to be a process of development, rather than a one-off. The House will undoubtedly take decisions over the next 12 months about how we want to modify the system to make it work. That is right and proper with a new approach. I give my hon. Friend an absolute commitment that that information will be provided to the House ahead of the review.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am very grateful for all the things the Leader of the House has said about the idea that this should be a pilot that we should engage in for a period and then review. We tabled amendment (e), which would mean that the changes to Standing Orders would be in place until the end of the parliamentary Session—that is to say, until next May. That seems perfectly in line with what the Procedure Committee said. It would provide the opportunity, as the Leader of the House has just said, to review the operation of four or five Bills and several statutory instruments. If the Government then wanted to come forward with another set of measures, whether they were identical measures because everybody thought that they were working wonderfully or different measures, they would be able to do so. Would that not be a sensible way to proceed that would allow him to take the whole House with him?
Chris Grayling
I studied the hon. Gentleman’s amendment carefully. There are two problems with it, or two reasons why our approach is right. First, it prejudges the length of the Session. We have not announced the length of the Session. Opposition Members will remember that the first Session of the last Parliament was two years long. Therefore, in some circumstances, his proposal would extend the trial period rather than reduce it. We do not know the date of the end of the Session, so it is difficult to commit to a pilot of that length.
Secondly, if the Session does finish next spring, we will not even, in my judgment, be able to test to the level recommended by the Procedure Committee, because not enough Bills to which these procedures apply would have been laid before the House. I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making but, with respect, I think the approach we have taken is better and I intend to stick to it.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for bearing in mind that I voted for you. However, I do take your stricture seriously, because I think that it applies to self-important Members as well.
Seriously, it is a real shame that the Leader of the House did not even bother to lay out what his measures will do, but there is a reason for that. Let me start with four very simple principles. First, Government must be by consent, which means that no state should abrogate to itself decisions that could more properly be made closer to those whom they most affect. That is why I support devolution to and within Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is also why I support England having a clear and distinctive voice in this Parliament. For that matter, I also believe that power, responsibility and finance need to be devolved further within England, because we are, and have been for far too long, a very centralised state.
My second principle is that I passionately support the Union. It is in the best interests of my constituents and of all our constituents. I know that the people of this country agree with that—not everyone, but the vast majority. That is why I will do nothing that will undermine or imperil the Union. It has stood us extremely well through war and depression and in sickness and in health.
My third principle is that all MPs are equal. We all arrive with an equal right to speak, and to make our constituents’ voices heard. In the old writs of return for Members, it was called the full power—plena potestas—to debate, agree, legislate and tax. Overturning that equality of all Members, which has stood the test of 800 years, is a big step to take.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Leader of the House quoted Sir William Mckay. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the things in the Mckay report was that there should be absolutely no move whatsoever towards the creation of two classes of MPs, but that is precisely what this does?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which is that the Mackay commission lays out various different routes that one could go down, but makes it absolutely clear that one of his fundamental principles was that there should not be two tiers of MPs.
Kevin Brennan
I asked the Leader of the House earlier on about how a Welsh Conservative MP could be appointed a Minister of the Crown in an area that is not devolved. Does my hon. Friend understand how that could practically be the case under these proposals if that Minister was not permitted to participate in the Committee stage of a Bill under his own jurisdiction?
Chris Bryant
If I am honest, the reason I was upset that the Leader of the House did not lay out his plans was that, in the previous debate that we had earlier this year which I did not take part in but which I read, I noticed that he made several mistakes about his own proposals. I do not honestly think that he fully understands them. It is certainly true that people would be able to take part in debates, but they would not then be able to table amendments.
It was a delight to see the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) telling us all how terrible it was that powers had been forced on other people by MPs from different parts of the country. When he was Secretary of State for Wales, despite not representing a Welsh seat, he introduced, much against Welsh views, the shape of local government that we have in England today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Bryant
I am duty bound to give way to the right hon. Member for Wokingham, but then I will make some progress.
John Redwood
In those days, we had a unitary state, where it was accepted that this place made all the decisions for all parts of the United Kingdom. We have moved on. What we are saying is that it is unfair if some parts of the UK have devolution and others do not.
Chris Bryant
The thing is the right hon. Gentleman is not arguing for devolution in England; he is arguing for a completely different thing. He is arguing to change this Parliament. The devolution that was introduced in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was on the back of a long process that gathered the views of the whole community. There were referendums, draft Bills and Bills.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Bryant
I love the hon. Gentleman, but I will make some progress.
Fourth, because our constitution is unwritten, we should enter into major constitutional change not unadvisedly or lightly but, in the words of the Prayer Book, discreetly, advisedly and soberly. That means that, when possible, the Government of the day should always proceed on a cross-party basis. Where they cannot do so, especially when one party alone holds a view, they should proceed with extreme caution. All these issues should be looked at in the round, in a proper constitutional convention. We cannot make these changes merely by altering the Standing Orders of this House. That is a thoroughly disreputable way of changing the constitution of this country.
Chris Bryant
I will give way in a moment.
My problems with the measures before us are many. First, they are far too complex, which is why the Leader of the House did not bother to explain them this afternoon. They introduce at least six new processes for each Bill. They will be incomprehensible to most Members of this House let alone the wider public. In years to come, people will be running competitions to see whether anyone can explain these measures in fewer than 1,000 words. I bet that nobody will ever win that prize.
The Procedure Committee produced an excellent report at the beginning of this week. It calls the proposals “over-engineered, complex and rococo”—that have more curlicues, arabesques and flourishes than the whole of the Vatican City put together. In any one day, we may be convened and reconvened as the full House, the English Legislative Grand Committee, the English and Welsh Legislative Grand Committee, a Committee of the Full House, and back again. There will be motions, money motions, programme motions, legislative consent motions, reconsideration motions followed by new legislative consent motions, followed by motions to agree or to disagree wrapped up in a majority and a double majority.
For the first time in our history, the tellers will become redundant, disappearing into the reasons room at the end of votes to be told the double majority result by the computerised Clerks. Some have described this as constitutional knitting, but at least knitting has a rhyme and reason to it. This will be a bowl of soggy, overcooked spaghetti.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to intervene. I tried to intervene on the Leader of the House, but was not able to do so. If I had been able to intervene, I would have said that I genuinely have some sympathy for the points that he and the Conservative party have put forward. The current situation is not tenable. It has caused resentment and we should have tried to sort it out. My objection is to the process. This is a major constitutional change; it is not a change to Standing Orders. Having won the referendum, to do this without a convention frankly risks ending the Union in a way that the Scottish National party could only have dreamt of.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. With 50 Members waiting to speak, we just cannot have long interventions. It is simply discourteous to those who are waiting to speak. We must have interventions to keep the debate flowing lest it becomes unlively.
Chris Bryant
I will try to keep it lively, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I might fail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)makes a good point. I agree with him and with some of the points that the Leader of the House has made. I believe that England needs a distinctive voice in this Parliament and I personally have no objection whatsoever to an England-only Committee to do the line-by-line consideration of legislation that applies only to England. However, like the McKay commission, I believe that there is a real danger when a veto is given to English MPs only, as that creates two tiers of MPs.
There is a further problem. As McKay points out, if the Government or the whole House feel at some point that they have to override English MPs, which is perfectly legitimate, it should be absolutely clear that that is what they have done. The whole House or the Government would then take the political risk, just as the Government would take it on the head if they appointed a Welsh MP to a post that involved largely devolved responsibilities.
Sir William Cash
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I am aware of the time constraints. He has sympathy with the approach, but does he not appreciate that it originated in 1997 when I tabled an amendment on similar but much shorter lines—only seven lines long—to deal with the problem? At the end of the day, this is not about different classes of MP but about different functions conferred under the process of devolution.
Chris Bryant
I am not so sure. At first sight, the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions seem perfectly sensible, but I have often found when I examine them a little more carefully that they do not really work in practice. He is nodding his head; he agrees.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman said that he would give a prize to anyone who produced a short summary and said that it would be impossible. The House of Commons Library has managed it in three quarters of a page; would it have helped him to have read that before he came here today?
Chris Bryant
I have read the House of Commons Library summary, but if the hon. Gentleman looks carefully, he will see that it does not lay out all the processes. It lays out only half the processes—[Interruption.] I note that the hon. Gentleman has picked something up from the Library and feels that on the back of that he can come in to the Chamber and be awfully clever—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] There we are; the debate is lively enough now, isn’t it, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman’s point about two classes of MP is important and one that we should tread very carefully towards. I wonder whether this is not the same as MPs serving on a Committee, which is limited in number, meaning that not all MPs can be present, yet can still be overruled by the whole House through, in this instance, a suspension of Standing Orders rather than having a legislative method, which would make it much more complicated.
Chris Bryant
This is good, because the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. He is absolutely right to do so, but I do not think he has followed it through to its logical conclusion. He is right. For centuries, when the House has sent a Bill into Committee, it has decided that certain Members should sit on that Committee for the line-by-line consideration of the Bill. That is absolutely the sensible thing to do. In the past, it was done by those who were most interested in the subject, and then it was decided that it would be done by party political balance. Now, there is a suggestion that if the Bills are exclusively English-only, there should be English-only membership. I have absolutely no problem with that; the hon. Gentleman and I are as one. He should therefore support our amendment this afternoon, as I agree with him.
My second problem is that these measures will politicise the Speaker—[Laughter.] [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] This is a Paddington bear stare—[Interruption.] All right, calm down—[Interruption.] You broke my leg; calm down.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have said this before, but I did not break the hon. Gentleman’s leg. He might be fleet of foot in this Chamber, but he certainly is not on the rugby pitch.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am very glad to say that as far as points of order as concerned, that is about the same as your breaking a leg on the rugby pitch.
Chris Bryant
It was a hospital pass, though.
Let me return to the issue of the Speaker. I know that the Leader of the House thinks that deciding whether a Bill is exclusively England-only will be simple, but none of the evidence thus far provided by the devolved Administrations, any of the legal experts or any of the Members of the House of Lords who have legal qualifications suggests that that is so. I urge hon. Members to consider any one of the Bills before the House to see whether it is straightforward.
There is a major difference between the money Bill certificates issued under the Parliament Acts and these new certificates. Money Bill certificates affect only the Lords and prevent them from considering our legislation. The new certificates will affect elected Members of the House who are bound to try to tie the Speaker up in knots. Since certification has to happen before Second Reading, the Speaker will in effect be able to delay when Second Reading can take place. The Leader of the House tells me that the Government will provide clear instructions to the Speaker on how he should certificate, but surely that turns the Speaker into the creature of the Crown, not the servant of this House. What price Speaker Lenthall?
David T. C. Davies
Surely it would be extremely simple to work out whether a Bill applied in England, Wales or Scotland, as we already have to do that. Whenever we pass legislation, we have to work out whether it will apply to the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament or not. A simple solution would be to ensure that if Welsh and Scottish MPs vote on it, it applies across the whole United Kingdom.
Chris Bryant
All right, I defy the hon. Gentleman to tell me whether clause 44 of the Housing and Planning Bill applies to England, England and Wales, Wales only, England, Wales and Scotland, or England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. He cannot—[Interruption.] I will give him some time.
Chris Grayling
No one is giving any instructions to the Speaker. It is custom and practice for those drafting a Bill to set out its territorial extent. No doubt those who drafted the Housing and Planning Bill will know precisely the territorial extent of clause 44. I do not happen to remember what clause 44 is; perhaps he does.
Chris Bryant
I know clause 44 extremely well, but I am not going to let on to the Leader of the House. If he cannot be bothered to read his own legislation when it goes through the Legislative Programme Committee, which he chairs, that is a problem for him.
Although the measures seek to address one anomaly, which has been referred to by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, I believe that they will create many more. If Scottish MPs are not to be allowed to determine legislation that affects only England, why should English MPs be allowed to determine Westminster legislation that affects only Scotland or, for that matter, that affects only Wales or Northern Ireland? Plenty of legislation, clauses and schedules fall into that category. The Partnerships (Prosecution) (Scotland) Act 2013, for instance, applied only in Scotland but was driven through the House of Commons on the back of the Government’s majority. I tell the Leader of the House that this is a dangerous road to go down as it will set a worm of grievance into the hearts of many across the Union.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
What my hon. Friend has just outlined suggests that he agrees with me that the Speaker will be challenged more and more, which will undermine his credibility.
Chris Bryant
I completely agree. I think that this will politicise the Speaker in a way that is not only unhelpful to the House—
Chris Bryant
Not yet, because I am replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham). The other problem is that, as several Members of the House of Lords have said, there is a danger that these certificates will become justiciable. I fully accept that under article 9 of the Bill of Rights any proceeding in Parliament should not be impeached or questioned in a court of law or any other place. However, it is clear that many legal experts believe that, by making such a sharp divide within the House, the new certification process will lead to the undermining of article 9 and to the decisions of the Speaker being questioned in a court of law. I think that that is another very dangerous route to go down.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Bryant
I will not give way to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), as I am giving way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil).
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Just for a change, I can directly answer the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. The view of the Chair is that if a Member has requested to speak but makes several long interventions, that Member’s place in the speaking order will go further down the list every time they intervene. I can make that absolutely clear. I hope the House is listening and will allow the hon. Gentleman to finish his speech.
Chris Bryant
I am not giving way for a while.
These measures will also not deliver the Government’s declared aim. The Library has examined every Division since 2001—some 3,000 Divisions in all. Library staff looked at what would happen if no Scottish MPs had voted in any of those Divisions. They found just a tiny proportion where that would have changed the vote— 25 in all. Yes, I admit that perhaps I could understand the Government if all the measures that we are debating this afternoon were intended to deal with those 25 cases, but of the 25, nine were on UK-wide or England, Wales and Scotland legislation, such as anti-terrorism legislation, so not affected; 10 were on non-legislative motions, such as whether the screen should be installed, so also not affected; three were on private Members’ Bills and, to answer the question from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) earlier, would not have been affected by the measures under consideration this afternoon; and one would have been tied and would therefore have fallen.
The most contentious subject, which the Leader of the House rather inadvertently deceptively mentioned in the previous debate, was on 27 January 2004, when the Higher Education Bill was given a Second Reading by five votes when 46 Scottish MPs had voted in favour and 15 against. Interestingly, the Tories voted against it then, but a few years later trebled tuition fees. However, that vote would not have been changed by today’s proposals, as I hope the Leader of the House acknowledges. It would not have been changed, would it? He need only nod. It would not have been changed, would it? [Interruption.] Oh, he thinks it would. No. The vote was on Second Reading, and Second Reading is not covered, a point that he has made several times. He does not understand his own provisions which he introduced this afternoon. [Interruption.] No, it was not. There is no point in the Leader of the House intervening again if he does not understand his own proposals.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. We must have a calm and measured debate.
Chris Bryant
That analysis leaves us with a single vote in 14 years, which added the statutory pubs code and independent adjudicator to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill to address the imbalance between large pub owning companies and tied tenants. I think even the Leader of the House would drink to that, and, anyway, the Bill also had Scotland and Northern Ireland measures.
The true effect of these measures will be to make the Government split their Bills up into lots of little Bills. There will be more Wales-only and Scotland-only Bills clogging up the system, and the Report stage of any England-only Bill will be absorbed not with debates about the substance, but with wrangles about procedure. So all this constitutional jiggery-pokery will be for nothing. I ask the Government: what’s the hurry? The Government have a majority of UK seats, of English seats and of English and Welsh seats. It will make not a jot of difference in this Parliament.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Grayling
I was simply going to point out, as the hon. Gentleman and I were both Members at the time, that the top-up fees Bill in 2003-04 would not have secured a legislative consent motion because the English were opposed to it. Therefore, under these measures, it would not have happened.
Chris Bryant
That is not correct. The right hon. Gentleman needs to look back through the record. The vote was on Second Reading and the Bill was carried very healthily on Third Reading by English MPs as well. The measures this afternoon have nothing to say about Second or Third Readings.
On the amendments, the Procedure Committee was clear that it wanted a proper pilot system for these measures. These are enormous constitutional changes and they should be properly piloted. The response from the Leader of the House suggests that he thinks this will be a pilot. He stated in a written ministerial statement that
“there will be a limited number of Bills to which the proposals will apply in the remainder of this Session of Parliament”—
that is all he is talking about. He went on:
“While this is not a pilot in the exact terms of the Committee’s Report, the outcome will be very similar.” —[Official Report, 20 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 43W.]
I gather the Government Chief Whip has been telling all his anxious colleagues not to worry as it is just a pilot, so I am taking the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip at their word. Our amendment (e) would mean that the Government would have to come back to the House in April if they wanted to continue the measures, or if they wanted to introduce other measures after we had had an opportunity to review how the processes had worked.
Talking of taking the Leader of the House at his word, he said earlier today that the Speaker is able to dismiss minor or consequential issues when certificating Bills. That is what he said—minor or consequential issues. He is wrong. It is minor and consequential issues. He knows that perfectly well and he went on to correct himself. Yet again, he does not fully understand his proposals. Our amendment (f) would make this “minor and consequential”, rather than “minor or consequential”, because that is the only way that Barnett consequentials could be taken into consideration when determining whether a Bill applies only in England or only in England and Wales.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. I understood that the Labour party supported devolution, but all I have heard is a line-by-line review—no veto, therefore no devolution for English voters.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman is not arguing for devolution either. This does not create devolution in any shape or form. It retains power here in Westminster and it is completely unnecessary because in this Parliament the Government have a majority in any venue they choose.
Chris Bryant
I am not going anywhere near the hon. Gentleman.
I say to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) that it is right that there should be line-by-line consideration by an England-only Committee. There should be a voice, but not a veto.
Mr MacNeil
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He correctly identifies a problem. It is a minor problem and he goes back to 2004 to identify it. The problem is very different. When the Scotland Bill came through this Parliament this year, when 95% of Scottish MPs, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament backed amendments, they were blocked by English and Welsh Members, despite Scotland wanting its power. That is where the problem is for this Parliament. It is not English votes for English laws.
Chris Bryant
I am sympathetic to some of what the hon. Gentleman says, except that when we are discussing a constitutional measure, that is a matter for the whole House. Today’s proposals are also a constitutional matter, the biggest constitutional change for some considerable time, which is being introduced through one House without a constitutional convention, which would have been a better way of doing it. Why on earth did the Government refuse to reply to the Lords’ request for a Joint Committee to consider the constitutional implications first?
Chris Bryant
I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
The Commons has not refused such a request for 104 years. And I am not going to take any nonsense from the Leader of the House about their lordships telling us what to do about Standing Orders. This is a major constitutional change. Devolution was brought in after a cross-party constitutional convention, a referendum, a draft Bill and a Bill. In this case, what do we get? The longest-ever amendment to Standing Orders—742 lines in all—driven through on a Government majority. That ain’t no way to treat Parliament. Nor will I take any lectures about the unelected Lords. I have always voted for reform. It is the right hon. Gentleman’s leader who has appointed nearly 10 times as many barons to the other House since he came to power in 2010 as there were sitting around Runnymede in 1215.
Chris Bryant
I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. Much as I enjoy what he has to say, there are others who need to speak.
The honest truth is that this is not a conservative set of measures. It is quite a dangerous set of measures. It is a bureaucratic nightmare and hon. Members will regret it. As Lord Forsyth said last night in the House of Lords, it is like an Uber driver without a sat-nav. It is not a unionist set of measures, either. It is as if the Prime Minister had decided to fashion a new grievance for Scotland—God knows the Scots have never needed a new grievance—because he wanted to antagonise them.
Mr MacNeil
If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is suggesting that 95% of Scottish Members looking for powers to be devolved to Scotland but being blocked by other Members is not a cause for grievance. If that is not a cause for grievance, what is?
Chris Bryant
I have just said that there are grievances, and there are English grievances too. I believe that we need to come to a proper constitutional settlement in this House—and across the whole of Parliament—that delivers an elected House of Lords so that the whole country is represented and so that we do not have the anomaly of a baron who was born in Scotland, lives in Scotland and claims expenses for travelling from Scotland to Westminster—[Interruption.]
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The shadow Leader of the House has been on his feet for half an hour. The House will not hear from a Scottish Member of Parliament until the sixth speaker. This is being done to us, because it is we who will become second-class Members. Is there anything you can do to speed up proceedings so that we can hear from Scottish Members of Parliament?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point. Many Members are waiting to speak, and they have legitimate points of view that the House must hear, which is why I have appealed for brevity and for short interventions. The shadow Leader of the House has another minute until he reaches half an hour, at which point I will raise my eyebrows at him.
Chris Bryant
I am terrified of your eyebrows, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was on my perorating sentence, so I would have finished my speech by now had the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) not intervened. I think that Conservative and Unionist Members will ultimately rue the day if they vote for these measures, because this is a charter for breaking up the Union, not keeping it together.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has made his point in his own way, and I feel sure that its thrust, or what Jack Straw used to call its gravamen, will be winging its way to Cardiff media outlets ere long. Meanwhile, his point is on the record and I will not respond.
Mr Speaker
I fear that I shall have to respond to a point of order from Mr Chris Bryant.
Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has now decided on a double majority voting procedure that will require a new process after we have voted in the Lobby. Can you clarify whether you will be making a statement on Monday to inform us how that will operate?
Mr Speaker
The short answer is that I did not have it in mind to make any such statement on Monday. I am aware that there is a relative urgency about these matters, and before long there will be a practical requirement to address cases that will arise under the revised arrangements. If such matters are to be addressed by me and others, and if there is an implication for the House as a whole, the necessary administration will need to be put in place.
It is not immediately obvious to me that the matter is so urgent that it requires a statement to the House on Monday. It may be that this issue is what we in the Speaker’s office call UIMOM—urgent in mind of Member—and that is not necessarily the same as being urgent for the House on Monday. However, if on the basis of further and better advice I decide that the matter is urgent for Monday, I will do my duty—of that the shadow Leader of the House need be in no doubt.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)
The business for the week commencing 19 October will be as follows:
Monday 19 October—Second Reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]. I also expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a statement following the European Council.
Tuesday 20 October—Opposition day (7th allotted day). There will be a debate on tax credits on an Opposition motion.
Wednesday 21 October—Consideration in Committee of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords] (day 1).
Thursday 22 October—A motion to approve standing orders relating to English votes for English laws.
Friday 23 October—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 26 October will include:
Monday 26 October—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
I should also like to inform the House about some debates to be held in Westminster Hall.
Monday 19 October—Debate on an e-petition relating to immigration.
Tuesday 20 October—Debate on the availability of cancer drugs.
Thursday 22 October—General debate on the conflict in Yemen, followed by a debate on fire safety measures in school buildings.
Monday 26 October—Debate on an e-petition relating to term-time leave from school for holidays.
As you heard, Mr Speaker, I announced that next Thursday we will be debating and voting on the Government’s proposals to allow for English votes for English laws. I should just inform right hon. and hon. Members that I have this morning published updated proposals for changes to the Standing Orders, reflecting the discussions and feedback I have had since July, as well as the letter I received from the Procedure Committee in September, which is published on its website. The revisions are clearly indicated in the new document. I have published these proposals today to give the House further time to consider them before the debate. I am also conscious that the Procedure Committee is due to report on Monday, and I will not be tabling the final proposed Standing Order changes until I have read that report and been able to make any final changes before we table them, probably on Monday night.
Chris Bryant
We should first pay tribute to two great men who have died since the last business questions: Denis Healey, the greatest Prime Minister this country never had, a man who showed that politicians need never be automata; and Geoffrey Howe, a man I had the great honour to know closely because of all the campaigning work we did together to keep Britain at the heart of Europe. As Robin Cook once quipped, because Geoffrey had been knighted and made a peer, and his lovely wife Elspeth had been made a Baroness, she was “once, twice, three times a lady”. That is a tribute to Robin Cook, too.
Deep in the bowels of the parliamentary estate lies a small, sweaty airless room where people go to spin. It is in the gym, and it is called the John Bercow spin studio! I have never seen the Leader of the House in the gym—I do not suppose anybody has—but it seems clear that his colleagues have been spending a great deal of time in the spin studio.
When the Prime Minister was asked yesterday when exactly he knew about Lord Ashcroft’s tax status, he started spinning away like a top, stuck his fingers in his ears and simply refused to answer. It got even worse later in the day when his official spokesman was asked precisely the same question 11 times—yes, 11 times—but answer came there none. Silence; tumbleweed. Can the Leader of the House therefore tell us when precisely the Prime Minister learned about Lord Ashcroft’s tax status? Was it as the Prime Minister declared in this House, or was it as Lord Ashcroft declared in his book? I know that the Leader of the House does not like books—for prisoners or anybody else—but there we are.
One might have thought that it was perfectly reasonable to ask the British Minister with responsibility for Syrian refugees how many Syrian refugees had come to Britain. One might have thought that it was the one thing that that Minister would know, but when he was asked this simple question seven times—yes, seven times—by the Home Affairs Select Committee, he refused to answer point blank. He even maintained that he knew the answer, but just did not want to tell anyone—like an eight-year-old hiding his homework from his older sister. So can the Leader of the House now tell us how many Syrian refugees have come to Britain?
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we will have a proper debate on Syria? The country, to be honest, is crying out for leadership on this issue. The Prime Minister seems to think that a consensus will miraculously develop on what the UK’s response should be. We have heard press briefing after press briefing, but millions of people have been displaced, thousands have lost their lives—thanks to Putin, Assad and ISIL—and all the while, the UK’s diplomatic, humanitarian and military policy on Syria remains a blank page. So when will the Government come to the House with a proper plan of action on Syria?
Mr Speaker, it is clear that the Government’s
“changes to tax credits have been somewhat under-scrutinised. The changes are both eye-wateringly painful to those affected, but also reverse a key policy platform of the last five years—namely, making work pay.”
Those are not my words, but those of the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), a Conservative Member, and he is absolutely right. Millions of working people are terrified of what will happen to their family finances next year. About 3.2 million families will be hit. A two-parent family with one adult working full time and the other doing 20 hours a week on the minimum wage will get a £1,100 annual pay rise, but even after that, will be £1,800 worse off and out of pocket. We all know that the Government are going to back down in the end on this issue, so will they just get a move on? Will the Leader of the House be the champion of this House and fight for a change on the tax credits cuts.
Yesterday, the Government were quite exceptionally defeated in the Lords on a motion condemning the mandatory court charges that were introduced by the right hon. Gentleman when he was the Injustice—sorry, Justice Secretary. One magistrate has written to me to say that because of these mandatory charges, many innocent people are pleading guilty. He says that he recently had to impose—he had to, because it is mandatory on the magistrates—the court charge of £150 on a homeless man who had stolen a £1.90 sandwich from Sainsbury’s. That is not the rule of law; it is cruel injustice.
The new Justice Secretary has already overturned the Leader of the House’s ban on books for prisoners. He has put a halt on the right hon. Gentleman’s plan to build Saudi Arabia’s jails and execution centres, and we read in the press today that the new Justice Secretary is now going to beat a retreat on these cruel mandatory court charges. Just in case the Leader of the House is to be completely airbrushed from history, can we have a debate on his legacy as former Justice Secretary? It need not be a very long debate.
The Leader of the House has announced that we will debate his EVEL—English votes for English laws—proposals next Thursday. I still believe that they are a dog’s breakfast. However, during the last session of business questions I asked the Leader of the House whether he had any intention of replying to the Lords message asking for a Joint Committee to be set up before the measures were voted on. It is exceptional for the House of Commons not to reply to such a message from their lordships. The Leader of the House chose not to reply, either to me in the House or to their lordships subsequently.
I know the right hon. Gentleman’s old school, the Royal Grammar School in High Wycombe, extremely well. When I was curate of the parish church I used to prepare the boys for confirmation at that school, so I know that they are taught good manners. Is it not time that the Leader of the House remembered his old RGS High Wycombe school lessons, and gave the Members of the House of Lords a proper response? Should he not reply, “Yes, we will not implement these changes until a Joint Committee of both Houses has been set up”?
Let me say finally that I am sure the whole House—every single Member—will want to wish Wales, Scotland and Ireland well in the rugby world cup this weekend, but especially Wales.
Chris Grayling
Let me begin by echoing the hon. Gentleman’s words about Denis Healey and Geoffrey Howe. They were two towering figures in the House, and they made a massive contribution to the national life of the country. They will be sorely missed by their families, their former colleagues, and all parliamentarians.
Let me also pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman. Last week, he was responsible for ensuring that three new plaques were placed on the wall of the Chamber for three Members who died in the first world war. It is absolutely appropriate that we remember parliamentarians who have given their lives in the interests of this country, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for doing that.
I hope the House will also remember that a service is being held in the chapel today, and I hope that, straight after business questions, you and I will go down there together, Mr Speaker. The service is being held to celebrate the life of Ian Gow, who, rightly, has a shield at the end of the Chamber—another man who gave his life in the service of this country. We remember him today as well.
The hon. Gentleman could perhaps be described as a beacon of stability in his party this week, and I commend him for that. He is a ship that is sailing steadily forward in a party that otherwise seems to be slightly on the chaotic side. Yesterday the shadow Chancellor announced five times his embarrassment at the U-turn that we had experienced. Moreover, during an interview on Channel 4 News—I do not know whether you saw it, Mr Speaker—the shadow City Minister first admitted that he had no idea what the deficit was, and then, after prolonged questioning, said that he had no idea when, or indeed whether, he had been able to go to the City. In fact, he had not been there at all.
The hon. Gentleman talked about spin, and about the John Bercow spin studio. I am afraid that, actually, the spin lessons in the House of Commons came from the Labour party when it was in government. The present Government have set out a clear plan, and this week we are implementing it. The hon. Gentleman talked about English votes for English laws. English votes for English laws was a manifesto commitment which we are implementing. Yesterday we debated devolution measures for England and Wales, a manifesto commitment which we are implementing. On Tuesday we debated the Immigration Bill, a manifesto commitment which we are implementing. So I will take no lessons from the Labour party about spin. This is a Government who are delivering what they promised.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Syria. We all take the situation in Syria enormously seriously. It is tragic and distressing beyond belief to see a country in such a state of chaos and ruins, and to see the human cost. I remind the hon. Gentleman, however, that we debated the subject for several days in September, and we will undoubtedly return to it when we need to. It is a matter that will be constantly in the minds of Ministers and the House, and we will continue to debate and discuss it at the appropriate moments.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the availability of time for a debate on tax credits. Again, I remind him that we had five days of debate on the subject following the summer Budget in July. He asked about English votes and the Lords message. He will have to wait for the debate next week, when I shall set out exactly how we plan to respond to all the issues that have been raised during the last few weeks and months.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about my legacy as Justice Secretary. I remind him that when the Labour party was in power—for 13 long years—if you had been in prison for less than 12 months, when you left you walked out of the door of that prison with £46 in your pocket and nothing else: no support, no guidance, nothing. It was shocking, it was a disgrace, and in all the years when the Labour Government had the money to do something about it, they did not. Well, as of last February, following the “Transforming rehabilitation” reforms, every single prisoner who leaves our jails will receive, for a minimum of a year, support, supervision and guidance. That is a massive change. It is a change I am proud of. It is a change that did not happen under the previous Government. It is a legacy that will be part of the social change that I think will mark the future view of this Government and what they achieved.
Finally, I echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the rugby world cup. In particular I offer my good wishes to Wales. May they do to Australia what unfortunately England were unable to do.
Wilson Doctrine
Chris Bryant Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I seek leave to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely the operation of the Wilson doctrine.
The right of Members of this House to be able to represent their constituents without fear or favour is intrinsic to our democracy. It is the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights and one of the most ancient freedoms of this country. In another era, before the existence of telephones and emails, it meant that MPs and peers, even in times of war, had the right for their written correspondence not to be intercepted or interfered with.
Since 17 November 1966, Members have relied on the words of Harold Wilson, the then Prime Minister, who said that he had instructed
“that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of the Members of Parliament. That was our decision and that was our policy.”
He added:
“But if there was any development of a kind which required a change in the general policy, I would, at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on my own initiative make a statement in the House about it.”—[Official Report, 17 November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 639.]
Despite the slightly opaque wording Wilson then used, that rapidly became known as the Wilson doctrine and it was extended five days later by Lord Longford to Members of the House of Lords. It was subsequently—and erroneously, it turns out—thought that it equally applied to Members of the European Parliament, to Members of the other three legislatures in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and to all other forms of digital communication.
Yesterday, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal gave its ruling on a case brought by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is in her place, and others. The judgment states that
“The Wilson Doctrine has no legal effect”
and calls it
“a political statement in a political context, encompassing the ambiguity that is sometimes to be found in political statements”.
That runs contrary to assurances given to Members of both the Commons and the Lords by successive Governments, including the current one, and casts doubt on the protection supposedly afforded by the Wilson doctrine. To all intents and purposes, it means that the Wilson doctrine is dead.
From your own intervention to the tribunal, Mr Speaker, and from the points of order raised by several Members yesterday, it is clear that Members on both sides of the House believe that this ambiguity needs clearing up as a matter of urgency. I note that the Home Secretary stonewalled on the issue when asked about it by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) on Monday, and this very morning the Leader of the House gave the most opaque comment I have heard yet on the matter.
Serious questions remain. First, is the Wilson doctrine still in operation in any meaningful sense whatsoever? Secondly, have parliamentarians’ communications been deliberately targeted? Thirdly, if so, has that been on the authority of a Minister, a Secretary of State or anyone else? This is an urgent matter and it needs consideration.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. The hon. Gentleman asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24, namely the Wilson doctrine. I have listened carefully to his application, and I am satisfied that the matter raised by him is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. Has the hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?
Application agreed to.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has indeed obtained the leave of the House. The debate will be held on Monday 19 October as the first item of public business. The debate will last for up to three hours, and will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the hon. Gentleman’s application.
Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful to you for what you have just announced. Given the Leader of the House’s announcement earlier that we will have a statement from the Prime Minister on Monday—such statements sometimes run for an hour or even two hours—and that we will then have this three-hour debate, there will not be much time for the Psychoactive Substances Bill.
Chris Bryant
No. The Leader of the House says that that is our fault. It is for the Government to make provision for matters of interest to the whole House and to make proper provision for scrutiny of their own legislation.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is of course that the timetabling of business is a matter for the usual channels, not for the Chair. It is important to explain that, not least for those beyond the House who are interested in and listening to our proceedings. What is a matter for the Chair—in general terms, but importantly—is the principle that the opportunity for scrutiny should be protected. It is extremely important, if there is a Second Reading of a Bill, that there is adequate time for it to be debated and, in the context of such a Second Reading debate, for its general principles to be the subject of scrutiny, so I hope that adequate time will be provided for that purpose. It is Thursday and the matters concerned will not be treated of until Monday, so there is certainly plenty of time for consideration of how the different priorities of the House can each and every one of them be met. I think we can leave that there for now. If there are no further points of order, the Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)
The business after the recess will be as follows:
Monday 12 October—Debate on a motion relating to superfast broadband roll-out, followed by general debate on the political situation in Stormont. The subjects for these debates were recommended by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 13 October—Second Reading of the Immigration Bill.
Wednesday 14 October—Second Reading of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords], followed by debate on a motion relating to the Charter for Budget Responsibility.
Thursday 15 October—Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill.
Friday 16 October—Private Members’ Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 15 October will be:
Thursday 15 October—Debate on the ninth report from the Justice Committee on Prisons: planning and policies, followed by debate on the eighth report from the Justice Committee on the impact of changes to civil legal aid under part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
Chris Bryant
As you mentioned earlier, Mr Speaker, our Order Paper today pays tribute to four Members of the House who lost their lives in the service of their country a century ago. It is a sad fact that the first of them, Captain Harold Cawley, was not the only Cawley son to be killed—all three brothers died, two of them as Members of this House. Their shields stand here as a permanent reminder of the personal tragedy of war. I often think that we are not really worthy.
I thank the Leader of the House for his response. I pay enormously warm tribute to my irrepressible predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). I think she will be a very difficult act to follow.
I gather it has been rumoured that I turned down the job of shadow Defence Secretary because I wanted this country to invade Russia. I can assure the House that I have absolutely no intention, either in that job or this job, of invading Russia. In fact, the way things are going I do not suppose we would be able to invade Alderney.
Besides, I could not honestly think of a better job than this one, up against the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). I confess that I have been wondering how exactly I should deal with him. Some have suggested that I should be quite aggressive and angry—and that is just his Back Benchers. I have decided instead to smother him with my love. I might even take him on a bonding session in a B and B, though obviously it would have to be one that accepts same-sex couples, and I am not sure he would like that very much. Let us see if all of us, together, can warm the cockles of his heart and even raise a little smile—it is just peeking out there now, I see.
Last Friday we had a very moving debate on the Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill. Eighty-seven Members put in to speak—the highest number ever. On Monday we had the Trade Union Bill, on which 67 Members wanted to speak, and on Tuesday we had the statutory instrument implementing the single largest cash change announced in the Budget. In each of these debates, dozens of Members were unable to speak because of the lack of time. In the case of the statutory instrument, the measure will lead to millions of families losing over £1,000 a year as a result of cuts to tax credits and gaining £200 a year, at most, from the so-called national living wage. Yet the Leader of the House allowed a mere 90 minutes for that measure when he could have provided for a full day’s debate before we took the statutory instrument itself.
I think the right hon. Gentleman is a decent man—[Interruption.] Yes, I do, honestly. I know he was a member of the SDP, but then I was very briefly a Tory in my exceedingly misspent youth, so I believe there is much rejoicing in heaven when a single sinner repenteth.
In all seriousness, I ask the Leader of the House, given the circumstances, to make provision for fuller debates so that Back Benchers can have a real crack of the whip. He has announced today a single day for the Second Reading debate on the Immigration Bill, but we have no idea what is in it and I am not sure whether it has even been published yet. Maybe it was published an hour ago, but it has certainly not been possible for anybody to scrutinise it yet. We know one thing for certain: this is the most contested subject in British politics today. Our constituents would expect many Members to take part in that debate, not just a smattering. Would it not be far better to have a two-day Second Reading debate on that Bill? If the right hon. Gentleman were to provide that, he would be the darling of the House.
As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made clear on Tuesday, matters in Northern Ireland are at an extremely critical stage. Let me make one thing absolutely clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), the shadow Secretary of State, made clear earlier this week: we stand four-square behind the principle of consent and a bipartisan approach to the peace process in Northern Ireland. We will do everything we can to help the Government ensure that the peace process remains on track. We are about to enter a three-week recess, though, so how will the Government ensure that all parties are kept abreast of developments? If necessary, will the Leader of the House, with your consent, Mr Speaker, recall the House?
The Leader of the House has said that he will bring his new proposals on English-only votes to the House before the end of October, but the House of Lords has now called for a Joint Committee to consider the implications of what we consider, and it clearly considers, to be half-baked plans to add four more stages to every Bill as it goes through this House. Can the Leader of the House recall any occasion when such a request from their lordships has ever been refused? Will he set up the Joint Committee as a matter of urgency and before we debate the matter in this House?
As you know, Mr Speaker, we have PQs, PMQs and WMSs, but I wonder whether the Leader of the House will allow us to set up MPAs—ministerial parliamentary apologies. Obviously, we would have to start with the Prime Minister, who could apologise to all the people of Yorkshire. The Leader of the House would obviously have to apologise to the people of Moss Side, about whom he was very rude a few years ago, and the Minister without Portfolio, the Mayor of London, would have to put in a daily—possibly an hourly—appearance.
The Prime Minister could also apologise for breaking his promise to the British people. In April he said he would not cut child tax credits. He said it on television programmes time and again, but this week he forced his Members to go through the Division Lobby to do precisely that. That is the kind of chicanery that undermines trust in politics. Surely the least the Prime Minister can do is to come to this House to apologise.
I hope that, between us, the Leader of the House and I, and all of us together, can help restore the Commons as a place of serious intellectual inquiry, with tough but fair scrutiny, proper respect for political difference and genuine open-minded debate. And maybe the Leader of the House will smile.
Chris Grayling
May I start by welcoming the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) to his new position and echo his words of tribute to his predecessor, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle)? I said in the House last week that she brought a certain style to business questions. We will miss her. She has gone on to an interesting portfolio. I wished her all the very best last week and echo the hon. Gentleman’s words this week. I very much enjoyed debating with her.
The hon. Gentleman and I were born in the same year, share the same name and were elected to this House on the same day. Notwithstanding his comments, we both agree that his party’s defence policy would be a danger to the security of our nation.
I also echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments about Members’ shields in this place. Their names are rightly commemorated on these walls as having done great service for this country. They played a vital role in protecting its security. We should always remember and honour them. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to refer to them.
Equally, it is also right to pay tribute to the victims of terrorism whose names are commemorated on the walls of this House, and to state that we as politicians—every single person in this House should state this, although that is not always the case—stand united against terrorism. It diminishes this House when that is not the case.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the debate on the statutory instrument two days ago. I actually agree with him. I think we should have had five days of debate on the changes that we discussed this week, and we did—as changes announced in the summer Budget, they were debated over five days, which is the right and proper way to deal with such issues. We take such issues seriously, and we provided the time to discuss them in the House.
The hon. Gentleman commented on the Immigration Bill, which has been published today. There will be extensive debate in this House, including in Committee and on Report, so I am absolutely satisfied that we will have adequate time for debate.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that one of the things we have done as a party in government is to provide much more time for the Members of the House to secure debates of their choice in their own time. I have just announced two sessions organised by the Backbench Business Committee on subjects of concern to Members. It is right and proper that we, as responsible stewards of the House, make time available for individual Members to secure the debates that they want.
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the situation in Northern Ireland, which is a matter of great concern to all of us. I send very best wishes, as I am sure do Members from both sides of the House, to the Northern Ireland Secretary in her efforts to make sure that the situation is resolved as quickly as possible. I pay tribute to all those involved in stabilising Northern Ireland. The progress we have made must not be lost, and I sincerely hope that we can reach a resolution. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support.
I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that we will update the House on Northern Ireland as and when necessary. This Government will always take the view that if there are matters of sufficient seriousness, we will seek a recall of the House. Clearly, however, those matters have to be of sufficient importance for a recall to be considered essential.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Joint Committee. I simply say that I have noted the House of Lords motion, which we have considered and are considering carefully. I would also say, however, that the Standing Orders of this House really are a matter for this House.
The hon. Gentleman made comments about broken promises. I simply remind him that the biggest broken promise of the past 10 years was the previous Government’s promise that we would have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. They tore up and ignored that promise, so I will take no lessons on broken promises from the Labour party.
I am slightly disappointed about today. Yesterday, we saw a new approach from the Labour party, with a public consultation about what questions should be asked in the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman sent an email yesterday, or a message via Twitter—
Chris Grayling
I do not know whether he sent an email as well, but he sent a tweet to all his supporters asking for suggestions about the questions that should be asked today. I have to say that we have heard none of those questions, so there must be a large number of disappointed people. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that they were censored. I must say that one or two tweets about him were very unparliamentary. He referred to past events. One or two of them he may not wish to remember, but they were certainly highlighted on that Twitter feed. Let me do the right thing, however, and give a response now to Graham from Glasgow, who asked, “Do I like salt and vinegar on my chips?” I am afraid I prefer mushy peas and gravy.
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend and I agree that the status quo in our relationship with the EU is not in our national interest. It is essential that we pursue this renegotiation, put the new deal to the country and give it a choice between staying in and leaving the EU, and of course the Government are bringing forward that choice in a way that never happened under the previous Government. I absolutely understand his concerns, and he knows I believe radical change is necessary. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will be in the House regularly over the autumn to take questions from colleagues about what is happening, and I know my hon. Friend will be here to ask such questions. I know that many in the House are determined to see change. The interesting question is where the Leader of the Opposition stands. I have heard mixed messages this week
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman might not be terribly sympathetic if his new leader decides to campaign to leave the EU. The Opposition are already in chaos over this policy area, as in many others.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
May I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to early-day motion 455?
[That this House notes that 26 September 2015 marks the centenary of the death of Keir Hardie, the first independent representative of working people to be elected to this Parliament, a consistent champion of Scottish Home Rule and votes for women, and an unswerving opponent of British involvement in the First World War; further notes Hardie’s seminal contribution to democratic politics, as founder of the Scottish Labour Party (1888), the Independent Labour Party (1893) and the Labour Representation Committee (1900); notes his commitment to women’s suffrage, trades union rights, free schooling, state pensions, Indian self-rule and the end to racial segregation in South Africa, long before these social reforms were attained; notes Hardie’s principled opposition to British participation in the First World War and regrets that his rejection of jingoism and mass slaughter led to Parliament paying no public tributes to this great democrat, on his untimely death at the age of 59; and expresses the hope that Hardie's lifelong support for Scottish Home Rule, universal social justice and equal rights for women will yet bear fruit.]
May I remind the Leader of the House of Keir Hardie’s commitments, detailed above, which of course included a commitment to Scottish home rule?
Chris Stephens
Indeed. The Parliament at the time did not pay a public tribute to Keir Hardie, so will this Government right that wrong and pay a generous tribute to a great democrat?
Serjeant at Arms
Chris Bryant Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a delight to be thirding, if there is such a thing—I know there is not—this motion.
The Serjeant at Arms role is rather a curiosity in the way we do our business. It is something that we have exported around the world to many other parliamentary democracies based on the British system. One of the previous Serjeants at Arms was a regicide, and one of the jobs of his successor was to gather up all the bodies from the previous regicide, chop them up into pieces, and display them in Westminster Hall. Lawrence never had to gather up bodies, though perhaps he knows where the bodies are.
I was once at a dinner party in Islington—this is obviously now mandatory for all Labour MPs—where somebody asked Malcolm Jack, the former Clerk of the House, exactly what the Serjeant at Arms’ job was. I remember very clearly that he said, “Well, he is the chap who dresses up in black silk stockings and patent leather pumps to chase MPs out of the toilets in the Division Lobby with his silver sword.” There are elements of our parliamentary system that do perhaps need a little reform, I gently suggest. Perhaps we should not limit our search to people who like wearing black silk stockings and patent leather pumps.
I am not sure what training is required for the job, but it is interesting that the last two Serjeants at Arms have come not from the traditional cadre, which has always been military or naval, but from very different forms of service and not necessarily through the almost hereditary process of the past.
There are several jobs in politics that have to be done with good grace, such as Leader of the House and a Conservative Secretary of State for Wales. Another is Serjeant at Arms, and Lawrence has done it abundantly well.
I want to make one apology to him, though. I cannot tell all of this story, I am afraid, because you would rule me out of order, Mr Speaker. On 27 March 2010, thanks to your good offices, it was possible for me and Jared Cranney to get married in the Members’ Dining Room. We are not allowed in the Chapel yet, but who knows? Maybe one day. Lawrence was then the Deputy Serjeant at Arms and he made himself and his team fully available to all of my guests. It was the first time it had ever happened in the building and he was absolutely charming. Unfortunately our guests were not allowed to pass through Westminster Hall itself, and I cannot tell you why, but I shouted, ranted and raved at him at the time, for which I apologise. With that, I wish him all the best in his new job.