Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As he will know, any country applying to join the European Union must meet certain standards on human rights and other related matters, and there can be no question of an accession when those basic standards have not been met. I cannot promise an early debate, but I will pass on to the Foreign Secretary my hon. Friend’s deep concern about the issues that he has raised.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May we have a debate on how many Liberal Democrat Ministers it takes to represent this country abroad? Things are surely getting a little bit shoddy when a whole string of Ministers do not turn up for their questions in the House. The Police Minister, the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary, the Culture Secretary and the Business Secretary have all not turned up for questions. It is just not good enough. This is the priority: they should be answering questions here, because otherwise we cannot do our job.
Privilege
Chris Bryant Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I, too, pay warm tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), because this task has been particularly difficult, not least because it has followed on from previous inquiries, not only while he has been Chairman, but carried out when my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) chaired the Committee.
This is a debate about privilege, and I always think that the word “privilege” is an unfortunate one to use in relation to Parliament, as I am sure would most voters. The truth is that we have not yet seen all the evidence. It is important to note that, precisely for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has adduced that nobody has wanted to trample on the toes of a criminal investigation, we are so far—this is true of Leveson as well—seeing only the tip of a very large iceberg. The issues that have been presented to us in the report refer to just three people, but more than 40 have been arrested and there may be further arrests yet.
When the whole story has come out, as I hope it will eventually, I think this instance will prove to have been one of the most flagrant examples of contempt of Parliament in Parliament’s history. It was not just one person at one time or one organisation for a brief period of time; a series of people systematically and repeatedly lied so as to protect themselves, to protect their commercial interests and to try to make sure that they did not end up going to prison. They did that knowing fully that they were telling lies to Parliament, and I believe that that is a fundamental contempt. If we look through the history of Parliament, it is difficult to find a moment when there was such a concatenation of deliberate abuses—contempt of Parliament. That is why we need to take this moment very seriously.
There was covert surveillance of Members of Parliament, deliberately to intimidate them in going about their duties. That applied particularly to members of the Committee. As we know, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) had his phone hacked, as quite possibly did some four score others. Indeed, News International managed to turn the Metropolitan police into a partially owned subsidiary, whereby members of staff from one organisation were going to work for another and then coming back. [Interruption.] I note that some of my hon. Friends suggest that the subsidiary was not partially owned.
The important thing for us to decide is what we do about this. I think that everybody is agreed that something egregious and terrible has happened. The question is what we do now. The Government have published a White Paper on parliamentary privilege, and it seemed to me that the Leader of the House was trying to suggest to the Committee on Standards and Privileges that it should be very wary of using penal powers or recommending that penal powers should be used. The Scottish Parliament, however, has precise powers under section 25—I think—of the Scotland Act 1998: where people refuse to give evidence to a Committee of the Parliament or to the Parliament or where they lie to Parliament, they are liable to imprisonment for up to three months. That provision is not written into statute for us, but we should certainly consider it.
Perjury before a court attracts a maximum sentence of up to seven years’ imprisonment, and even perjury by making a false declaration in a statutory declaration is liable to a sentence of up to two years’ imprisonment. The factors considered when sentencing would be whether the lie was said just once, whether it was inadvertent or deliberate, the impact that the lie caused, whether there was more than one lie, and on how many occasions the lie was perpetuated.
Kevin Brennan
Further to my earlier intervention, does my hon. Friend remember the point of order I raised on this matter on 14 July 2011, when Mr Deputy Speaker confirmed that under the Parliamentary Witnesses Oaths Act 1871 and the Perjury Act 1911, Select Committees can require witnesses to give evidence under oath and make them subject to criminal charges of perjury if they are subsequently proved to have lied?
Chris Bryant
I do remember that point of order, which is why when my hon. Friend intervened on the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), I knew what he was going to ask her. It is a point that he rightly makes and has made repeatedly.
We are congratulating ourselves today on the Select Committee process bringing us to this point, but if the Select Committee process had worked better, we might have reached this point three years ago. The Select Committee might have been able to require Rebekah Brooks to give evidence in 2009 and it might have been taking evidence under oath from the very beginning. Then we would not have to decide what we should do about these people, as the courts would be doing so. If we were to apply all those elements of how to decide a sentence for perjury before a court to this case, I would have thought one of the lengthier sentences would be handed down. The same is true for contempt of court, which carries a sentence of up to two years’ imprisonment.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but does he accept that Select Committees do have the power of summons, which was in fact used during part of the current inquiry?
Chris Bryant
Yes, but Committees have quite often been rather tentative about using those powers. I remember discussing this with the hon. Lady in the Library, and she was uncertain whether that power existed—and I kept on telling her, “Yes, it does exist. It can be used. All we have to do is make sure that the Clerk of the House uses the proper processes.” It is important to remember that we have these powers and that they need to be used more effectively. For instance, it seems extraordinary that no member of the Murdoch family had ever given evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee until the day on which Mr Rupert Murdoch and Mr James Murdoch were summoned last summer. I am sure that that was not because Committees did not want to interview the most important significant player in the British media landscape in this country.
As well as using such powers more effectively, we need to decide for ourselves that we have these powers. I know that there are those who say that we are not a High Court of Parliament anymore; that we are not a court. They say that we are not able to provide a fair tribunal, as the Human Rights Act or, for that matter, the European convention on human rights, might determine. So would it be possible for the House of Commons to make a determination in relation to any individual, for instance requiring that individual to be arrested and brought to the House? Some people think that the very idea of bringing someone to the Bar of the House is anachronistic.
We must have some powers to be able to do our job properly. We must be able to summon witnesses, and if they do not want to come here—as happened with the Maxwell brothers, and seemed at one point to be going to happen with the Murdochs—we must be able to send the Serjeant at Arms to summon and, if necessary, arrest them and bring them to Parliament. We need to be able to arrest. Most Members will not have been here on the occasion when the Chamber was invaded, but the Serjeant at Arms has to be able to arrest. It is quite a simple power.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman takes an intervention from the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), may I gently remind him that the narrow matter under consideration today is the question of whether to refer it to the Standards and Privileges Committee—to which subject I know that he is addressing himself?
Chris Bryant
Indeed, Mr Speaker. It has been customary in all the debates that have taken place historically on such motions to try to provide a little bit of advice for the Select Committee that will be dealing with the matter, so that it knows how to deal with it.
I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), and then to the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland).
Mr Whittingdale
I shall bear your warnings in mind, Mr Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman is raising matters that I think Parliament needs to consider. In particular, the Select Committee did decide to dispatch the Serjeant at Arms to serve a summons on Mr James Murdoch and Mr Rupert Murdoch after they had initially said that they were not willing to attend the Committee at the time when we had asked them to attend. I have to say, however, that we did so with some trepidation, because we genuinely had no idea what would happen if they maintained their refusal to come. That too is something that Parliament needs to think about.
Chris Bryant
I absolutely agree, but I also think that we should no longer live in an era of trepidation in this House. I think that we should step more boldly.
Mr Buckland
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about being bold in regard to contempt of Parliament and how the House enforces its rules, but does he not share my sense of trepidation about involving the prosecuting authorities in dealing with any alleged lies that have been told to us? Does that not present a danger that the courts will be brought in to determine issues that are properly the province of this House and no other?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman has taken me into much wider subject matter, but he too is trepidating—if that is the verb from “trepidation”—and I do not want to trepidate. I want to step boldly.
I believe that the House, and the Select Committee itself, should consider, in terms, first whether or not the three individuals mentioned, and perhaps, corporately, News International, should be summoned to the Bar of the House. I believe that that must still be an important power available to the House. Secondly, I think that the House and the Committee should consider whether or not the individuals should be fined, not least because considerable expense has been incurred by Parliament and by the prosecuting authorities through the process of lying to Parliament. Thirdly, I think that it must be right for us to consider whether or not to imprison. If this had happened in the Scottish Parliament, it would have led to imprisonment. If it had been a contempt of court, it would have led to imprisonment. If it had been perjury in court, it would have led to imprisonment.
It has been said that some of these people are not in this country. What can we possibly do about it? The last person who was arrested and imprisoned by Parliament, in 1880, Charles Grissell, also fled the country. He went off to France, to Boulogne. The Speaker sent the Serjeant at Arms’s messenger to Boulogne, and when Charles Grissell came back to the country he was arrested and sent off to Newgate until the end of the parliamentary Session.
I simply think that we were hoodwinked. Indeed, for a long period politicians were so nervous and frightened of what the press would say about us that we effectively put the hoodwinks on ourselves. Now the temptation will be for the Committee to shy away from using any of its penal powers, and I think it a shame that that seemed to be the direction in which the Leader of the House was pushing it. I think that would be a profound mistake, because, surely to God, it is time we asserted the freedom of Parliament—in fact, the rights of Parliament. We must do so not for our own sakes—it is irrelevant for our own sakes—but simply because if Parliament is lied to, we cannot do our job on behalf of our constituents, and if Parliament is lied to and there is impunity thereafter, people will lie again, and then the democratic process unfolds.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Bryant, please, can we just calm down a little? Both sides get irritated and no one wants to see anyone irritated. Can we offer the hon. Lady our congratulations as well?
Sir George Young
That is an important project. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport spoke in the debate yesterday on transport-related issues. I cannot promise another debate in the near future. My hon. Friend will know that we have agreed to fund Network Rail up to a maximum of £130 million to implement the package to which he refers. The investments to increase capacity and speeds on the Sheffield to Manchester line, and to increase speeds on the Manchester to Bradford via Rochdale and Halifax line and the Manchester to Preston via Bolton line are subject to value for money being confirmed, but they are a demonstration of our commitment to infrastructure, particularly in my hon. Friend’s part of the country.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On 15 March, the Government tabled a series of changes to the immigration rules. Some of them are perfectly sensible, but some of us fear that others of them will lead to a new generation of domestic workers living in virtual servitude. They will come into force if, after 40 days, no motion has been tabled in this House to oppose them. We have prayed against them. I know that the Government have difficulty working out when 40 days will lapse, but they will lapse tomorrow. The Government have therefore failed to provide an opportunity for us to debate the matter. Will the Minister for Immigration delay the implementation of the changes until we have had a proper debate?
Sir George Young
The procedure that we have adopted is exactly the same as that which the hon. Gentleman adopted when he was Deputy Leader of the House.
Sittings of the House (1 May)
Chris Bryant Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I beg to move,
That at the sitting on Tuesday 1 May—
(1) the House shall sit at 1.30 pm;
(2) there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall; and
(3) the Speaker shall not adjourn the House, if a Message from the Lords Commissioners is expected, until that Message has been received.
All good things must eventually come to an end, and this extraordinarily productive Session of Parliament is no exception to the rule. The motion before us is quite usual in the run-up to Prorogation to facilitate the meeting of the House as it comes to the end of the Session. The first part of the motion sets out the time that the House shall sit tomorrow. Of course the House would normally sit at 2.30 pm on a Tuesday, but it is quite usual when the House is meeting to prorogue that it meets earlier than usual. Perhaps the proposed time is slightly later than would be normal in these circumstances. The reason for that is that the other place is debating the Joint Committee report on House of Lords reform on Tuesday morning and, as Parliament prorogues as a whole, the proposed time at which we are sitting reflects the negotiations in the other place to conclude the debate on the subject which began there today.
It is also in accordance with the past practice of arrangements for Prorogation to cancel the sitting in Westminster Hall, and paragraph (2) of the motion achieves that aim. It is unfortunate for Members who were successful in the ballots that their debates will not take place. Also, it is quite usual at the end of the Session that some scheduled business has to fall, once the House sets the time for Prorogation. I hope those hon. Members will be successful in securing debates early in the next Session.
By the time of Prorogation, we will have sat for a total of 290 days in this Session.
Mr Heath
As the hon. Gentleman says, as always from a sedentary position, it is the longest ever. This stems from the move to spring-to-spring Sessions, which moves the start of the Session to the spring from the autumn. It is the longest Session that I can remember, and it is right that we now bring it to an end with the final piece of legislation in the Government’s planned programme.
The business managers have aimed to balance the needs of the House this Session, providing adequate time for scrutiny of legislation, including the provision of multiple days on Report for nine Bills. Members should also be aware that 18 Public Bill Committees finished their work early. As well as introducing 40 Bills implementing a wide range of coalition policy, we provided 58 days for the Backbench Business Committee, with more than 40 of those enabling debate on the Floor of the House. I know that Members around the House will welcome this inclusion in the balance of time available to the House. I look forward to the outcome of the Procedure Committee report on the work of the Backbench Business Committee, as the House continues to improve it in the future. In addition, extra time was provided both for private Members’ Bills and for Opposition time, in recognition of the unusual length of the Session. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
Let me respond to what the shadow Leader of the House has said. The business statement was, indeed, brief, but you, Mr Speaker, are always asking Ministers to make brief statements, so I hope that found favour in at least one quarter.
I endorse what the hon. Lady said about the House staff. On Shakespeare, I think “All’s Well That Ends Well” is a good work to remind the House about. On special advisers, the hon. Lady rehearsed a number of issues that were raised yesterday. I cannot remember which Minister resigned when Damian McBride had to leave No. 10 Downing street.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will, of course, reply to the letter the Deputy Leader has written to him, but may I remind the hon. Lady of what Lord Justice Leveson said on Tuesday? He said that
“although I have seen requests for other inquiries and other investigations and, of course, I do not seek to constrain Parliament, it seems to me that the better course is to allow this Inquiry to proceed. When it is concluded, there will doubtless be opportunities for consideration to be given to any further investigation that is then considered necessary.”
I think Lord Justice Leveson has given good advice.
On the question of meetings with Rupert Murdoch, I understand that Rupert Murdoch has produced a new list this morning, which has not yet been published but which will be published in due course. The Government stand by the list we produced on a quarterly basis, which we were always clear included only formal meetings, rather than, for example, being at a summer party when it would obviously be impossible to know the full list of those attending.
Sir George Young
However, I am sure the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will want to reflect on what he did yesterday when he raised evidence in this House that had not yet been released by the inquiry, a clear breach of the restriction order placed on it by Lord Justice Leveson, and which Lord Justice Leveson deprecated in his opening remarks this morning. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to reflect on what he did, and possibly apologise to Lord Leveson.
Finally, on the Public Administration Committee and all that, I shall tell the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) what the Government have been doing. We have been carrying forward important reforms that the country needs on welfare, immigration, planning, education, health, energy, legal aid, the financial sector, the costs of Government and transforming local democracy—all of them reforms that her party ducked when in government. We are having to do this in a less benign economic environment than the last Labour Government had, and we are having to do it at the same time as we pay off their record budget deficit. Against that background, we have boosted businesses, cut corporation tax, helped hard-pressed families and given pensioners the biggest increase in the state pension for over 60 years. The truth is that this two-party Government have done more for the country in two years than her party managed in 13.
Sir George Young
Again, I would welcome such a debate, perhaps at the beginning of the next Session and in the debate on the Loyal Address. The youth contract, launched this month, has provided an extra 250,000 work experience or sector-based work academy places. We also have the Work programme, which will help more than 3 million people in total, as well as work experience and apprenticeships. We have a portfolio of schemes designed to get young people back into work, and there are already signs of success, with about half of those who have gone through a work experience course having come off benefits. That seems to me to be a very encouraging initiative.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
In 1628, the Government were in the midst of a “clustershambles” and they decided to prorogue Parliament immediately, so that there could be no further criticism of them. It would seem that the Leader of the House is, in effect, going to do that on behalf of Her Majesty on Tuesday. May I suggest that it would be much better to provide a whole week of Back-Bench business, so that all the matters that I am sure Government Members would like to debate, such as why the European Commission is demanding an increase of 7% in its budget, and all the issues that Opposition Members would like to discuss, such as the double-dip recession, can be put not only to Ministers, but to the Prime Minister, who will be avoiding Prime Minister’s questions for another two weeks?
Sir George Young
The previous Prime Minister was absent at Prime Minister’s questions roughly twice as often as the current Prime Minister, who has spent more time answering his questions than almost any other Prime Minister. It seems to me perfectly reasonable, once Parliament has discharged the legislative programme, for the House to prorogue and then start a new Session. There will be an interval of perhaps three sitting days between the end of this Session and the beginning of the next one, which is roughly in line with what happened previously—[Interruption.] I just say to the hon. Gentleman, who is chattering incessantly from a sedentary position, that when he was Deputy Leader of the House he did not introduce a Backbench Business Committee. The freedom that he is now asking us to give to the House was one that he denied Parliament in the previous Parliament.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Bryant Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Press Complaints Commission is engaging in a pretty ludicrous example of shenanigans at the moment; it is trying to bounce Leveson into some new plan that it is trying to put forward. Will the Minister make it absolutely clear that the only thing that the Government are interested in is what Leveson comes up with—not some shoddy deal struck by the editors?
Mr Vaizey
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is being entirely fair. My understanding is that although the final answer lies absolutely with Lord Leveson’s inquiry, Lord Leveson has made it clear that he wants the press to begin to make moves to get their house in order while he considers all the evidence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)
I am delighted to have a chance to answer at least one question. Unfortunately, the answer is that I do not know, because this is an issue for the Treasury.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
None the less, could the Minister, who is responsible for tourism, please have a word with the Minister responsible for broadcasting and arts, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), and explain to him the geography of Morocco? It is twice the size of this country, and when it comes to expanding rural broadband, it is the size of the country that matters. Not very many people live in Blaenrhondda or Blaencwm, which are a long way from cities, but they are the people who really matter if we are to get our economy going.
John Penrose
I am enjoying busking this one. The short answer is that the population of Morocco, I am told by many people on the Benches behind me, is only half that of the UK—it is also economically smaller—and as I am sure everybody will appreciate, the density of population is also relevant when it comes to connecting people to broadband.
Mr Heath
I am going to have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he will need to read the paper that we are producing, because it will, I hope, be a comprehensive survey of everything that relates to privilege and ask some pertinent questions about whether reform is necessary and whether it would be helpful to Members of this House in going about their business. He will have to be patient and wait for the paper, which we hope to publish before the end of the Session.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I hope that whatever the Government produce will indeed be a “green” paper, because there is one key issue that has to be resolved before we move any further, and that is: should we be putting anything about parliamentary privilege into statute? The danger is that the courts would then choose to interpret our actions and proceedings in this House, which would rather undermine the Glorious Revolution.
Mr Heath
For once, I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Green Paper will ask the specific question whether the case has been made for legislation. We have approached this issue with an open mind, and we want to seek the views of both Houses on whether legislating further on parliamentary privilege is either necessary or desirable.
Backbench Business Committee
Chris Bryant Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said, it is perfectly possible that the Government will get this motion through, without any of the amendments that have been tabled, on the back of a payroll vote. Will he undertake that if that does happen and the Procedure Committee then decides that it wants to take the House down a slightly different route, he will table motions to allow that to happen in the next Session?
Mr Heath
I have already indicated that we will want to see the Procedure Committee’s conclusions. It has been the practice of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and myself to bring forward motions to allow the House to consider the Procedure Committee’s recommendations. I do not think we have anything to be ashamed of in that respect as we have been very careful to ensure that the House has opportunities, where possible, to determine these matters. Obviously, we shall have to wait and see what emerges from the Committee in due course.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I think the Leader of the House has, in general, been an excellent Leader of the House; since he took up his post after the general election, he has, broadly speaking, done a good job, as has the Deputy Leader of the House. I therefore feel sorry that today is not a day when we are able to praise the Leader of the House, as I think the proposals he has come up with are ill considered and ill timed. I think that he has let himself down, to be honest.
I say that because we are now coming to the end of a two-year Session. This will, I believe, be the longest parliamentary Session since 1643. That has given additional power to the Government, as they have been able to keep on having a go at getting legislation through in the other place. That is why we are still having a row about the health service Bill. If we had not had a two-year Session, many of its elements would have been ditched long ago—and likewise in respect of many other pieces of proposed legislation.
The Backbench Business Committee has been a genuine success, however. As has been said, the timing of this proposal is wrong because the Procedure Committee has not yet completed its business. The proposal is therefore a bit of an affront to it. Also, the Government had plenty of time to organise for today. They could have set about this process months ago, because we always knew that another set of elections was going to be held at the end of the second year. We could have started this process six months ago rather than recently.
I also point out to the Leader of the House that the coalition agreement says that there will be a House business committee by the third year, which starts in a few weeks’ time. We therefore should, in fact, be debating the House business committee tonight, not the Government trying to seize a bit of power in relation to the BBC.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) go to the heart of what it is to be a Member of Parliament. Every single one of us can be partisan. I can be extremely partisan on occasion. [Interruption.] Indeed, other hon. Members can be partisan, too. That is not wrong, as we were all elected on party tickets. My constituents in the Rhondda do not vote for me because I am a lovely, decent chap. [Interruption.] I think I have carried the House on that. They vote for me because they want a Labour Government and a Labour person to be elected.
Of course, that partisan element of how we do our business and the way we tussle in the Chamber is part of making sure that the Government do a better job. I have no problem with being partisan, but we also have to rise above being partisan on occasion. We have sometimes let ourselves down on that and it is where the Leader of the House is doing so on this matter. It was a sadness that Robin Cook never managed to get some of these things through previous whipping organisations when we were in government, but it was a delight when people who were standing for election by the whole House—the Chairs—were lobbying all Members of the House; they actually wanted a mandate and wanted to understand what all the Members of the House thought. Surely that is why it is better that the members of the Backbench Business Committee should be elected by the whole House, not just by their individual parties.
I launched my “save the backbench three” campaign last Friday because of a concern. The Committee has done a good job, having given us the best debates this year, whereas the Government have given us some pretty poor debates during the past year and for the past few months they have given us hardly anything to do at all. I fear that next year’s business will be a waste of time, unless we keep the “backbench three”.
Committee on Standards and Committee of Privileges
Chris Bryant Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
On 2 December 2010, the House agreed, without Division, to a motion agreeing with the principle set out in the twelfth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that lay members should sit on the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. The House invited the Select Committee on Procedure to bring forward proposals to implement that.
The Procedure Committee published its proposals in its sixth report of the current Session, which was published on 7 November last year. The Government, and I am sure the whole House, are very grateful to that Committee for its work. The motion draws extensively on the work of the Procedure Committee, and follows consultation with that Committee, the Standards and Privileges Committee and others. I am pleased to say that the Procedure Committee has written to confirm that it broadly accepts the approach that we propose to take, and the support of the Standards and Privileges Committee is apparent from the welcome decision of the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) to add his name to the motion.
Before turning to the provisions of the motions, I will remind the House briefly of the background to the proposals. I need hardly remind Members that the expenses scandal rocked public faith in the House to its foundations. One part of that crisis lay in the House’s approach to disciplining Members, which, as the Committee on Standards in Public Life observed, did not command full public confidence. As Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee at the time when the Committee on Standards in Public Life inquired into these matters, I said that the then Standards and Privileges Committee:
“would be very happy to consider having outside members sitting on the Standards and Privileges Committee…particularly to assist us in coming to judgments where people may feel at the moment we are possibly too lenient.”
The Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended in November 2009 that
“there should be at least two lay Members who have never been Parliamentarians on the Standards and Privileges Committee”,
who
“should be chosen through the official public appointments process and formally approved by the House”.
The House endorsed that recommendation after its debate on 2 December 2010. I will not attempt to summarise all that was said on that day, but the most powerful case was made by the right hon. Member for Rother Valley. He said:
“Lay members provide the public with reassurance that the Committees are not cosy gentlemen’s clubs, where deals are stitched up and scandals are hushed up. They can also bring valuable outside experience and expertise with them.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2010; Vol. 519, c. 999.]
He referred to the lay members of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliament Standards Authority. As a member of that committee, I can assure the House that the contribution of lay members is invaluable.
I have already referred to the specific recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that lay members should never have been parliamentarians. That is reflected in the motion, which also mirrors the statutory definition of lay members used for the Speaker’s Committee on IPSA.
Amendment (b), tabled by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale), runs contrary to the letter and, more importantly, the spirit of the Kelly recommendations. I invite him to consider whether it would really enhance the credibility of the House’s disciplinary procedures to appoint as a lay member a former hon. Member who left the House in 2005. I fear that that might be portrayed not as a fresh start but as a return to the bad old days, and of course public perception is part of the issue that we are seeking to address. I urge him not to move his amendment and invite the House to reject it if it comes to a vote.
Of course, there is a difference between agreement in principle that a change should take place and agreement on how it will operate in practice. A number of significant issues have been raised about lay membership of a Select Committee, and I will explain briefly how those issues have been tackled in the motions.
The first issue, identified by the Procedure Committee, was that although there had been no suggestion that lay members were appropriate for the consideration of privilege matters, there was no straightforward way to exclude them from such business within the structure of a single Committee. The solution proposed by that Committee, which the main motion today incorporates, was to create two separate Committees, one on standards and one on privileges. That is actually a reversion to the position that existed until 1995.
As the Procedure Committee recommended, provision has been made in motions 3 and 4 for the Chair of the Committee on Standards to inherit the pay now received by the Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Government have also made it clear in their response that the Chair of the Committee on Standards, like that of the current Committee, should be drawn from the Opposition Benches. In accordance with the current arrangements, that does not need to be set out in Standing Orders.
Our intention today is not to change the composition of the Committees. The two Committees may have a common membership, and they may choose to elect the same Chair. Even if that is not the case, the Committee of Privileges is likely to meet less often and will be able to consider only matters referred to it. In those circumstances, and following the precedent of the Committee on Members’ Expenses, pay for the Chair of the Committee of Privileges is unlikely to be appropriate.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly support what the Leader of the House is doing in separating the two Committees, which is long overdue. Will the process remain that a matter of privilege is raised through the Speaker and then in a three-minute speech, before going to the Privileges Committee? Will that Committee also be able to consider any draft legislation on privilege that the Leader of the House publishes? I believe he told me earlier this year that he would publish draft legislation before Easter.
Sir George Young
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the explanatory memorandum, he will see that the terms of reference of the new Committee of Privileges will be the same as those of the relevant part of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. There will be no change to the process by which a matter is referred to the Committee, or to its remit. The position will remain that it can consider only things that the House refers to it and that are within its terms of reference.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful. The other bit of the process that has always worked well thus far is that whenever the Committee on Standards and Privileges has produced a report, Government time has been provided to debate it. Will that be true of both Committees in future?
Sir George Young
Again, the hon. Gentleman anticipates something that I may say a little later, but if he looks at paragraph 176 of the Wright Committee’s report, he will see what is deemed Back-Bench business and what is deemed business that the Government should schedule. It states:
“Backbenchers should schedule backbench business. Ministers should give up their role in the scheduling of any business except that which is exclusively Ministerial business, comprising Ministerial-sponsored legislation and associated motions, substantive non-legislative motions required in support of their policies and Ministerial statements”.
It may help the hon. Gentleman if I say that the Government will ensure that there is adequate time to debate on the Floor of the House any matter referred to the House by the Committee on Standards or the Committee of Privileges. I suspect that there will be a dialogue with the Backbench Business Committee to ensure that time is available at the appropriate moment.
Amendment (c), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), would set down in Standing Orders a requirement that the membership of the two new Committees should always be the same. The Procedure Committee examined the case for a requirement of identical membership in paragraph 63 of its report, and concluded that the case had not been made. I recognise that there is a case for an element of shared membership, and possibly even for identical membership, but the Government, like the Procedure Committee, do not support the notion that there should be an inflexible provision to that effect in Standing Orders. With that assurance, I hope he will not move his amendment. In splitting the Standards and Privileges Committee, the Government do not intend to revisit the decisions taken at the beginning of this Session on appropriate Committee membership.
The second issue that has been raised about lay members is their status. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has stated that
“if the proposed external members of the Standards and Privileges Committee are to carry credibility, they need to have full voting rights.”
The Procedure Committee considered the matter carefully and in great detail, and it invited the House to study with care the arguments for and against full voting rights. As the Government made clear in our response, we have carefully considered the arguments about whether lay members should have full voting rights. We have concluded that it would not be appropriate to grant such rights in the first instance, in view of the authoritative evidence given to the Procedure Committee that it would create a risk that lay members’ participation would not have the protection of parliamentary privilege.
Lay members will be able to participate fully in evidence taking and informal consideration of draft reports. In addition, there will be two specific protections for their position. The first is the requirement that any written opinion of a lay member present at the relevant meeting on a report agreed by the Committee must be published as part of its report. The second is that the Committee cannot conduct any business unless at least one lay member is present.
A decision to proceed on that basis will provide a guarantee of the effective participation of lay members in the decision-making processes of the Committee, and can be taken without prejudice to subsequent consideration of full voting rights. The Government will consider the case for legislation that would place beyond doubt the position of a Committee on Standards including lay members with full voting rights, as part of our work on preparing the forthcoming draft parliamentary privilege Bill and the accompanying Green Paper.
The third and final issue that has been raised about lay members was voiced in the debate in December 2010 and echoed in the Procedure Committee’s report. It relates to the selection of lay members and control over how they subsequently carry out their work. The motion proposes to entrust that matter to the House of Commons Commission, which would also take responsibility for a motion for dismissal in the unlikely eventuality that it should prove necessary. I believe that the Commission, chaired by the Speaker, is the best way to ensure that there is a fair and open process that leads to the House being asked to appoint only excellent candidates.
I know that some concern has been expressed about the term of office of lay members. The Procedure Committee recommended single five-year terms. However, it also acknowledged uncertainty about appointments straddling two Parliaments. The motion therefore provides for appointments for the remainder of one Parliament and reappointments for a period of up to two years in a new Parliament. Although I understand the advantages of a single term, the Government remain to be convinced that it is appropriate for lay members to be appointed for a period that, by definition, lasts longer than the appointment of hon. Members. There will be a very strong presumption indeed that lay members will be reappointed for a further term at the start of the subsequent Parliament. If they were not, the Committee on Standards would find it difficult to operate. I offer my commitment that the Government will assist in such a process.
Sir George Young
The overall settlement of 35 days included an allowance for standards and privileges matters. As I have said, what the Government are left with does not include such business. The amendment is an ingenious shop-steward bid—if I may say to the hon. Lady—for extra time. If a matter comes before the House from the Standards Committee, or indeed from the Privileges Committee, there will be a debate in the House on that matter at the right time, whoever provides the allocation. That is the assurance that the House wants, and we can have a dialogue offline, as it were, on how that is accounted for in the annual tally between the Backbench Business Committee and the Government.
Chris Bryant
But actually, that is not quite how the process works now, is it? First, privilege issues, as opposed to standards issues, must go through the Speaker, who then forcibly makes time available, normally on the next day, and therefore always in Government time. The Leader of the House obviously thinks that he has made some improvements on Wright today, but perhaps another improvement he could make is to guarantee that time to debate privilege matters will come out of Government time.
Sir George Young
There is a distinction between a debate when a matter is referred to the Privileges Committee, which is normally relatively short, and a debate on a report from the Privileges Committee or the Standards Committee when they have concluded their consideration, but I accept what the hon. Gentleman says: if the Speaker decrees that a matter should be debated, it is debated. In response to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire, I said that it is important that the House debates such reports once we have them. The business managers and the Backbench Business Committee can have a dialogue on whether the time comes out of the Committee’s quota, which, I should say in passing, we have generously exceeded in the current Session—we have gone way over 35 days to somewhere near 50 days.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
That sounds to me like a matter for the Mayor of London. We believe in devolving decision making, and it is a matter for the Lord Mayor to decide how he distributes bonuses to the staff for whom he is responsible—
Sir George Young
The Mayor. The Mayor of London; I am sorry. The Government believe that there is a role for bonuses in the public sector in order to reward performance, but that they should be on an acceptable scale. I am sure that the Mayor of London—Boris, who I hope will be re-elected—will be tuned into this exchange and that he will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s concern in due course.
Sir George Young
I am not sure that there is any point in my rising and coming to the Dispatch Box, as my hon. Friend has already discounted my reply. I must point out to him that, on 8 February, I made it absolutely clear that
“the Government believe that it would be appropriate for the House to address the anomaly whereby members of the Backbench Business Committee other than the Chair…are elected by the House as a whole rather than by Members of the political party to which they belong before the next elections of members. The Government propose to allow time for consideration of proposals to this effect towards the end of the current Session.”
That is exactly what we are doing. It will then be a matter for the House to decide, in the light of the debate on Monday, whether it wishes to adopt the proposal on the Order Paper. I note that my hon. Friend has tabled an amendment to the motion indicating a contrary view.
Chris Bryant
I do not know what the Leader of the House knows about the contents of the Budget that lead him to believe that we shall need a debate on assisted dying the next day. May I ask him about the Backbench Business Committee debates that we have had in which the Government have let motions go through, because they knew that they would lose a vote on them, but have then gone on to do absolutely nothing about them? So far, we have had five, including one on prisoners’ voting rights, one on circus animals and, last night, one on the death of Sergei Magnitsky. Is there a means whereby the House can ensure that, when it has agreed a motion, the Government must follow up on it?
Sir George Young
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice) released a statement on circus animals last week, making it clear how we were responding to the vote in the House last year. The hon. Gentleman will have seen what the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said on behalf of the Government at the Dispatch Box in response to the motion on Sergei Magnitsky last night. It is of course always open to the Backbench Business Committee, if it feels that the action has not been substantive enough, to re-table a motion with another vote. In response to what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question, I must point out that it was not the Government’s decision to debate assisted dying on the last day, but it is a serious subject on which many Members will welcome a debate.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Bryant Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
T7. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.Members will know that those who have taken civil action, which is now complete, against the News of the World have faced legal bills of some £300,000, £400,000 or £500,000, yet the most that has ever been awarded by a court in a privacy case is £60,000, and many settlements have been for much less. Given the changes to the conditional fee agreements that the Government are pushing through, may I suggest that it might be a good idea to have a small claims court for privacy and libel cases? Would the Secretary of State support that? I do not want him to say, “Let’s wait to hear what Leveson and the Justice Secretary say.” We want to know what he thinks.
