Committee on Standards

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I think he got the easier job.

I have not done any radio or television interviews on this matter because, as Chair of the Committee, I am a servant of the House. I thank the Commissioner and the Committee. In particular, I wish the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) well, because he is very ill at the moment. I hope that he will be back with us soon. It is inappropriate for people to comment on absences from the Committee when they do not understand why members might be absent.

I am painfully conscious that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) lost his wife in tragic circumstances in June 2020. I wish to express my sincere condolences to him. I have known suicide in my family, as he knows, and I have performed many funerals for suicides. I know the grief, the anguish, and often the guilt that is associated. The last year must have been very distressing for him, and the Committee took those circumstances fully into account when considering his conduct.

I will address the charges, the process, the sanction and the amendment. The charges are very serious. The Member repeatedly, over a sustained period, lobbied officials and Ministers on behalf of his paying clients, Randox and Lynn’s Country Foods, from whom he was receiving more than £9,000 a month, as he still is. He pursued their commercial interests. When they could not get meetings with officials and Ministers, he used his privileged position as a Member of Parliament to secure them. Providing privileged access is a valuable service.

The Member promoted what he called “Randox’s superior technology”. He wanted the Government to use Randox’s calibration system. He repeatedly used his taxpayer-funded parliamentary office for commercial meetings. That is paid lobbying. In some shape or form, it has been banned since 1695 and expressly so since cash for questions, which brought this House into terrible disrepute in the 1990s. One Conservative Member described it to me as a “catalogue of bad behaviour”. I have yet to meet a Conservative MP who has not said to me, “He clearly broke the rules.” I think that includes the Leader of the House.

The Member says that he was raising serious wrongs, but he did not say so at the time. If they were truly serious, one might have expected him to write articles or do media interviews, as he was perfectly entitled to do. He did not. He did the one thing that he was banned from doing: lobby Ministers time and again in a way that conferred a direct benefit on his paying clients. That is expressly forbidden. It is a corrupt practice.

On the process, the Member has had a fair hearing. We had legal advice from Speaker’s Counsel throughout. As one former High Court judge said to me yesterday,

“the procedure is consistent with natural justice and similar or identical to workplaces up and down the country.”

We on the Committee spent many hours reviewing the evidence in this case without fear or favour. The Member had prior notice of the charges and the evidence against him at every stage. He had his legal advisers with him. The Committee invited him to make his appeal against the commissioner’s findings in writing and in person, and I hope he would confirm that we gave him every opportunity to make his case to us and that the session was conducted respectfully and fairly. I think he is nodding.

The Member has said that his witnesses should have been interviewed. Natural justice requires that witnesses be heard, but that does not necessarily mean that they must be heard orally or cross-examined. We did what many courts and tribunals do every day of the week: we reviewed all the witness statements, took them into consideration and published them in full.

The Member claims that the commissioner had made up her mind before she sent her memorandum. That is completely to misunderstand the process. As the commissioner has done in every other case, she started an investigation and invited the Member to meet her and/or to submit evidence. Once she had completed her investigation and, by definition, found on a preliminary basis that there had been a breach of the rules, she submitted a memorandum to him for his comments, and then to the Committee. That is when we heard his appeal, in writing and in person.

I turn to the sanction. As the Committee says in the report:

“Each of Mr Paterson’s several instances of paid advocacy would merit a suspension of several days, but the fact that he has repeatedly failed to perceive his conflict of interest and used his privileged position as a Member of Parliament to secure benefits for two companies for whom he was a paid consultant, is even more concerning. He has brought the House into disrepute.”

A Conservative colleague whom I respect a great deal said to me on Monday that justice should always be tempered by mercy. I agree. But justice also demands no special favours.

These are the precedents that we considered: Patrick Mercer was suspended for six months; the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) for 30 days; Jonathan Sayeed for 14 days; and George Galloway for 18 days. When Geoffrey Robinson failed to provide proper responses to the commissioner and Committee, he was suspended for a month. This case is just as serious because it involved at least 14 instances. It was a pattern of behaviour, and the Member has said time and again over the last week that he would do the same again tomorrow. If the House were therefore to vote down or water down the sanction, or to carry the amendment, it would be endorsing his action. We would be dismantling the rule on paid advocacy, which has been around in some shape or form since 1695. I am afraid that the public would think of us as the Parliament that licensed cash for questions.

Let me turn to the amendment. I have worked with the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) on many things; I think she is very wrong today. It is the very definition of injustice that one should change the rules or the process at the very last moment, and to do so for a named individual. That is what the amendment does. Retrospective legislation to favour or damage an individual because they are a friend or a foe is immoral and the polar opposite of the rule of law. That is why, as the Leader of the House knows, I spoke and voted with Conservative Members when we were considering a retrospective motion to subject the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) to a recall petition. The amendment should fail on that basis alone—it is the opposite of due process.

The amendment purports to set up an appeal process, but an appellate body must be independent and every single member of the body will be parti pris, by definition. They will have been whipped and taken a view today. They will almost certainly have voted. The proposed Chair, by agreeing to have his name put forward, is already not independent. I point out gently to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire that it was her motion as Leader of the House on 7 January 2019 that set up the Standards Committee in its present form. At that time, she said that

“a greater element of independence was required, and that having seven lay members and seven parliamentary Members on the Standards Committee…provides the right balance—having the memory and the corporate understanding of being in this place, while at the same time ensuring that we can benefit from the experience and knowledge of independent lay members.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 128.]

The body she proposes today will have no independent members—no independence.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will not take an intervention, if the right hon. Member does not mind. She must know that this is a retrograde step. She also said—I say this strongly to all hon. Members who have said many things about the parliamentary commissioner—that

“ensuring that the PCS can operate independently…is vital and will better enable justice for those seeking recourse.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 127.]

The amendment will drive a coach and horses through our standards system. We will have two rival Select Committees on standards at the same time, charged with the same piece of business. As many hon. Members may know, the Standards Committee is engaged in a review of the code of conduct, which we are required to do in every Parliament, and that will include review of the operation of the system. I am absolutely certain that there are things that we could do better. I am determined to make sure that we will do things better to ensure natural justice.

Bullying and Harassment of MPs’ Parliamentary Staff

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate today, following the publication of Gemma White QC’s report last week. I would first like to pay tribute to her for the incredibly detailed independent inquiry that she led. Her report into the historical allegations of bullying and harassment of MPs’ staff adds greatly to the work done by the independent complaints and grievance scheme working group and will drive much-needed further reforms in the way we treat and value all those who work for and support us in our roles as MPs.

I also want to acknowledge all the current and former staff members who contributed their experiences to the inquiry and helped to expose behaviours that have clearly gone on in this place for far too long.

I met Gemma White during my time as Leader of the House and found her to be both knowledgeable and determinedly constructive in supporting Parliament’s desire to modernise our practices. Her report highlights the need for everyone working in or visiting Parliament to be treated with dignity and respect, but she also highlighted some truly unacceptable employment practices. I was appalled, as I am sure were colleagues from both sides of the House, to read some of the comments from staff. As part of my work in chairing the ICGS working group, I heard some pretty harrowing testimony from several individuals, and I want to pay tribute to them for their bravery in coming forward to speak with the group. It is clear that we in Parliament must bring about long-lasting and positive institutional change without delay, and that change must come from the very top. Only then can we truly restore confidence in how Parliament works.

The report acknowledges that the ICGS provides MPs’ staff for the first time with a mechanism for having complaints of bullying and harassment independently investigated. Feedback from some of the first complainants is that turnaround times under the new procedure can be too slow. My first observation is that the scheme is still developing, so it is important that we allow it time to become fully embedded into the fabric of Westminster. The staff working for the scheme are all fully committed to continuous improvements in its processes. Secondly, I am glad that the White report agrees that employment relationships should continue to sit with individual MPs, and I fully agree with the recommendation for a centralised human resources function for MPs’ staff.

However, the question of where the responsibility for a new HR function would lie must be considered further, although the two obvious candidates would be either IPSA or the House authorities themselves. The former—I am sorry to say—currently suffers from fairly widespread feedback from Members’ staff about a lack of confidence in its practices and hence in its ability to be the supportive voice that staff members need. The other alternative provider of HR for staff would be the House authorities themselves. During the working group, they raised concerns about taking on an HR role for themselves, because that could create an unhelpful secondary employment relationship, but it would be worthwhile looking again at whether that could be the best way forward.

A key aspect of the White report is that many current staff still feel uncomfortable making complaints, and to assure them the working group must focus specifically on ensuring that, as far as possible, an individual’s career will not be affected in any way if they come forward with a complaint. That is why the ICGS carries out any investigation in strict confidence. I urge anyone with a grievance or a complaint to be encouraged to come forward via the helplines that have been widely advertised around the estate.

As part of the scope of the working group, it was recommended that a wide range of training should be available to MPs and their staff. The White report recommends making some of that training mandatory in order to bring about institutional behavioural change, and I totally agree. All MPs and all staff working for MPs should now be required to undertake at least the Valuing Everyone training that was implemented as part of the ICGS. I call on each of the Whips Offices to ensure that their MPs have completed their training within six months of the report’s publication.

[Chris Bryant]

When someone arrives here—perhaps straight out of university—to work for a Member of Parliament, that MP may be their first employer, so all the bad ways that they learn from them then become the bad ways that they may get into in later life, perhaps when they later go on to become an MP or work elsewhere in the civil service. Is it not therefore all the more important that new Members of Parliament are trained in human resources best practice from the moment they arrive here?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He has followed this closely, and he will recall that, during the working group’s investigations, it was clear that we needed to take things slowly and not to push for too much change too quickly, but it is also apparent that Parliament has come to value its progress and its modernisation of practices, and so on. We can now move much faster than was thought back in late 2017. It is right that people should undertake mandatory training, particularly if they will be employing staff who may be coming into their first job.

Cox Report: Implementation

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I had the great pleasure of going, with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), to one of the first prototypes of the Valuing Everyone training. I join him in thoroughly recommending that all colleagues undertake that training. It is quite insightful and extremely helpful.

Let me move on to address further points made in Alison Stanley’s report that should inform the roll-out of the responses to the Cox inquiry. Alison Stanley talks about independence. Quite often, people who want to come forward with a complaint will be concerned that they do not want it to be discussed with somebody whom they may then come across, whether in a corridor, a Select Committee or, indeed, the Terrace café. They do not want to feel that they are going to bump into the person, so the scheme’s true independence is vital, and Alison Stanley makes strong recommendations in that regard on which we should focus.

I wish to focus my remarks on the final point, which is about the ownership of the scheme. This goes right to the heart of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley said: who owns this scheme? We want to see things happen—we all say that it is not happening fast enough and ask why. The reality is that the recommendations in the Stanley report set out the problem rather than the solution. Using her best efforts, she has in effect sought to use current parliamentary processes to try to find a little scrap of accountability somewhere. I am afraid we are going to have to change that, so I shall focus on some specific recommendations.

First, the House of Commons Commission has struggled to tackle issues—not only this one, but others—at pace. The Commission should meet every week, not every month, and should have a much shorter, more focused agenda. The Clerk of the Commons and the director general should be voting members, not people who just sit there giving comments and are then overruled. They are clearly the two humans who are accountable for many issues, including the roll-out of this scheme and of changes to the culture, so it is right that they have a say on the House of Commons Commission.

The Commission’s meeting times should be fixed, and if the chair is unable to attend, as is often the case, an alternative—I suggest it should be one of the external commissioners—should step in and chair the meeting instead, rather than it being cancelled or delayed, as happens now and is often a problem for the other attendees. The minutes of House of Commons Commission meetings should be circulated promptly within a couple of days, in line with best practice in the business world, not with the agenda for the next meeting, as so often happens now.

On the point of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, MPs should be elected on to the House of Commons Commission. Colleagues are saying, “I don’t know how the House of Commons Commission works. What does it do?” The reality is that if Members were elected to it, they would find out. In the House of Commons, we should be electing the members not only of the Commission, but of the Standards Committee. It should not be the case that somebody who might be dangerously independent is muzzled.

[Chris Bryant]

It is almost a shame to see the right hon. Lady on the Back Benches—no, it is a shame to see her on the Back Benches not least because she was taking this matter forward with such verve and energy and I applaud her for that. She knows that I completely agree with all the recommendations that she has made thus far. We should be electing people on to the Commission, and the Commission should be meeting far more frequently so that it can transact more business more swiftly. Should we not also be electing all of the House Committees so that they can feed into the Commission more effectively?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman and I have had lots of conversations about this. We are in complete agreement, and I am quite sure that he and I would make a good fist of proposing a wholesale set of changes for the House of Commons Commission, including for the Finance and Administration Committees, but that is not the subject for today. None the less, what the whole issue of culture change in this place highlights is the need to change the way that we manage it, which is why I want to focus specifically on our recommendations for changes to the House Commission.

The final point on which I would like to focus is that, in dealing with culture change, we really have to do so in a bicameral way. I will not go through the sequence of events, but, essentially, we approved our report in July. The House of Lords approved theirs in November of that year. It was only in May of this year that they changed their standards Committee, so we are completely out of step. What they have agreed is not the same as what we have agreed, and this issue is absolutely integral to the point about sanctioning. I want to talk briefly about that before I draw to a close.

I am delighted to see that a number of members of the working group are here today and I thank them all again for what was such a fantastic cross-party collegiate piece of work. Let us be clear: this is not all about MPs. Members employ staff, the House employs staff and there are many, many contractors here. There are 15,000 people who work in the Palace of Westminster. Although this is not all about MPs, there are some really important considerations for them.

The working group wanted to ensure that a member of staff and/or an MP or a peer could be sanctioned even if they resign or, in the case of an MP, step down or lose their seat. This is very important. In all cases, the working group felt that records of bullying and harassing behaviour should be kept so that a member of staff or a Member of Parliament could be sanctioned should they ever return to either House. In this way, an MP who was given a peerage might be rejected outright potentially by the Lord standards Committee for their previous record in this House of bullying and harassment. A member of House or MPs’ staff, or, indeed, a contractor could be sanctioned by being ineligible for a security pass should they seek re-employment in either House. These are really important points. I do not want to labour this, but I really do think that this has to be bicameral. We cannot have this going down two separate tracks so that someone can step down as an MP, go and get their peerage and then sit pretty at that end—as long as they do not repeat their nasty behaviour, they can get away with it scot-free. That point is key.

I was delighted by recent visits that I received when I was Leader of the House from Canadian and Australian delegations and by my own trips to visit the Llywydd in Wales and the presiding officer in Scotland to talk about our complaints procedure in the UK Parliament. They are looking closely at what we are doing here. What I really hope and pray for is that this old and very much loved Parliament can demonstrate real change and can provide a genuine role model for other Parliaments right around the world. If we can achieve that and truly get to the point where we treat all who work and visit here with dignity and respect, we will have achieved a lasting legacy from this generation of UK parliamentarians.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am slightly disappointed to hear the right hon. Lady’s intervention. This Bill is about setting up a Sponsor Body and a Delivery Authority to restore the Palace of Westminster, which, as I have just said, we are obliged to do whether or not we stay here. There is always a considerable amount of work going on to assess and analyse the location of various different Government Departments and agencies right around the United Kingdom. Today, however, we are simply looking at the Second Reading of a Bill that enables us to undertake our legal duty to restore this Palace, whether or not we stay here. It is not for us to consider under this Bill the whole of government. I hope that all hon. Members will appreciate that we are seeking to facilitate Parliament’s decision that we must take very seriously our financial, fiduciary and cultural duties to this place.

The House was very clear in early 2018 that work needed to be taken forward to protect and preserve the heritage of the Palace. I want to pay tribute to the hard work of Members and staff who have got us to this place. In particular, I would like to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and her Committee, which undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill; the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, which recommended that we decant; my predecessors as Leader of the House, my right hon. Friends the Members for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington); the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who eloquently made the case last year for a full decant; the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who agreed to support the Bill; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who always speaks with such passion on this issue.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I have this horrible feeling that the Leader of the House is winding up or coming to the end, and I just want to raise the issue of planning. One of the biggest threats to the whole project is if the northern estate programme, which is essential to delivering R and R, ends up by being delayed by lengthy judicial review or planning problems. The advice seems to have been given that if we include some kind of planning provision that brings planning into the Sponsor Body or the Delivery Authority, that will make this a hybrid Bill. However, the Olympics Bill was not a hybrid Bill, and that had a planning provision that was granted to the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, so why can we not do the same for this Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I will still respond to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) specifically on his point.

[Chris Bryant]

Several times, the Leader of the House has referred to the seven parliamentarians who will be on the Sponsor Body, but the Bill says no fewer than four and no more than eight. The Joint Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) suggested that they should be elected Members. Should there not be more Members of the House of Commons than Members of the House of Lords, and would it not be a good idea for them to be elected?

[Andrea Leadsom]

This is a matter for the House to decide. I am talking about seven parliamentarians, because that is what is currently on the shadow Sponsor Body. It is, of course, for the House to make such decisions. The parties put forward their nominees, and that is the reason there are four peers and three Members of this House. This is precisely a very good example of where it is for the House to decide what structure it wants. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a bit more progress.

The Bill is not simply about restoring an old building in an urgent state of disrepair. This is about the ambition we have for a 21st century Parliament, which is more family-friendly and a truly modern workplace. The work we are undertaking provides Parliament with the opportunity to consider the daily working of the Palace. It is clear that the programme should seek improvements to the Palace for people with disabilities to gain access, but there is also an opportunity to resolve issues with long queues at visitor entrances and to offer more inclusive access to Parliament across the country by improving some of our broadcasting services.

The work will also provide employment opportunities right across the UK. The programme will require specialist skills, which, especially in the heritage sector, tend to be found in small and medium-sized enterprises. Apprenticeship schemes right across the UK will be able to engage in the work of restoring the Palace. This is already happening on other projects being carried out on the parliamentary estate, such as the encaustic tile conservation project. R and R also offers the opportunity to enhance the experience of students visiting Westminster, whether through improved educational facilities in the Palace or the opportunities of the Richmond House replica Chamber.

As hon. Members across the House know, I passionately believe in making Parliament a more family-friendly place to work. R and R will provide an opportunity to help make our workplace the best it can be in supporting Members to balance the long hours they work in this House with their family commitments and better reflect the public we are here to represent. That is just a run-through of some of my own views, but I recognise that all Members will have opinions on what they want to see delivered as part of R and R. That is why the Bill includes a specific duty on the Sponsor Body to consult parliamentarians on the strategic objectives of the R and R works.

Members across the House will also have views on the decant to our temporary workplace during R and R. In passing the motions in early 2018, Parliament was clear that as part of R and R it would temporarily leave the Palace, so that the restoration and renewal work can be done more quickly and more cheaply.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 9th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

You are generous, Mr Speaker, especially because I am a naughty boy and was not entirely in the Chamber when the business question started. I am grateful to you—thank you very much. Would the Leader of the House care to come and visit me in my constituency and perhaps stay overnight? [Hon. Members: “Oooh!”] We have a spare room—it’s fine. She could then see the Cory Band, which is indisputably the best brass band in the country. It won the British open championships last year—it is the reigning champion—and last week it won the European brass band championship. While in the Rhondda the right hon. Lady could also come to the Rhondda Arts Festival Treorchy—RAFT—and see all the great acts that will be put on in the last week of June.

[Andrea Leadsom]

What can I say, other than that you were clearly tricked by the hon. Gentleman sneaking in under the radar, Mr Speaker? I hope you are not losing your touch. I find that invitation almost entirely irresistible, and I would be delighted to visit the Rhondda. May I commend the hon. Gentleman’s local brass band, the Cory Band, and congratulate it on its superb achievements?

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 2nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. Deafness is incredibly difficult for people to live with and the Government have sought to take strong steps to improve quality of life, the inclusiveness of services and so on to try to support people who suffer from deafness. The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important issue and I recommend that she perhaps seek a Westminster Hall debate so that all hon. Members can share their ideas.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I do not think so cruelly of the Leader of the House. I think of her more as the Wizard of Oz. Hmm. I know she dismisses the whole issue of how long the parliamentary Session has gone on for, but in the old days we used to have a new parliamentary Session every year. The Government laid out their programme and then we debated it. Opposition and Government Members had the chance to hold the Government to account. We had a new process of starting private Members’ Bills with a new ballot, and we had a fixed number of Opposition days and days for Backbench Business. All that has gone out of the window. Today, we are sitting for the 296th day in this Session, which makes it the longest Session of this Parliament since the Glorious Revolution in 1688. I think that that is a mistake. We used to get two weeks’ business in a row. Now we get just three days’ business in a row. I know she will say, “Oh well, it is because there are all sorts of important things that you shouldn’t have to worry about,” but the truth is that we all have constituents. We like to make commitments to our constituency. Some of us have important medical appointments. I have heard of male and female Members who want to go to a screening, because they are over 50 or over 45, but have not been able to make a commitment to do that. In the interests of everybody’s health, will she please get back to a proper process of having a Queen’s Speech every year and announcing the business two weeks’ in advance?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman, if I was the Wizard of Oz, could certainly be a munchkin. He would be very welcome in that role.

[Andrea Leadsom]

No, I do not think he would see himself as Dorothy at all.

[Chris Bryant]

A friend of, anyway.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Indeed. With the red shoes, no doubt.

[Chris Bryant]

Ruby slippers!

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. He will be aware that at the beginning of this Session we announced that it was going to be an extended Session because we had a significant amount of Brexit legislation to get through, as well as a very packed domestic legislative programme. That remains the case and we keep the end of the Session under review. He talks about announcing two weeks of business. There is no specific convention around announcing the future business. It has been the case for a very long time that the period of future business announced depends on the predictability of future business. If this House were to embrace the opportunity to deliver on the will of the people as expressed in the 2016 referendum and vote to leave the European Union, we could get back to normal. We could end the Session. We could move on. We could all start talking about something else. I therefore encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to think again about voting for the withdrawal agreement Bill when it comes back.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 25th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the EU settlement scheme is being well used. It has been well established and the feedback seems to be generally positive. I am very happy, as always, to take up a specific issue on his behalf, if he would like to write to me after business questions. If it is a more general concern that he wants to raise, perhaps he could bring it up with Exiting the European Union Ministers at the next oral questions.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Thank goodness the fire at Notre Dame led to no loss of life, but if we were to have a fire in this building, parts of which are considerably older than Notre Dame, we might not be so lucky because there are 9,000 people who work here every day. Is it not time that we use this as a wake-up call? I know the Leader of the House agrees with me, but will she put on her hobnail boots, storm over to Downing Street, stamp her feet and force the Prime Minister to bring forward the parliamentary buildings Bill as fast as possible? We cannot have the French rebuild Notre Dame in five years and us still thinking about leaving 10 years later.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am extremely sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s request. He might find traces of my hobnail boots on their way over to No. 10 over the past week or so. That prospect was not lost on me either. I was so sorry to see the terrible fire at Notre Dame. It was an absolute tragedy for the world. He is of course absolutely right that we have to ensure that we do everything possible to bring forward our own restoration and renewal Bill as soon as possible. Watch this space.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)]

Subject to the House agreeing item 1 on the Order Paper, I can confirm that the House will rise at the close of business today and return on Tuesday 23 April.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Just stop there.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Okay. [Laughter.]

The business for week commencing 22 April will be:

Monday 22 April—The House will not be sitting.

Tuesday 23 April—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Northern Ireland (Extension of Period for Executive Formation) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Electronic Communications (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Animal Health, Seed Potatoes and Food (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Wednesday 24 April—Opposition day (unallotted day). There will be a debate on an opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

[Hon. Members]

Hooray!

[Chris Bryant]

Resign!

[Andrea Leadsom]

No.

Thursday 25 April—Debate on a motion relating to school funding followed by debate on a motion relating to restrictive intervention of children and young people. The subjects of these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 26 April—The House will not be sitting.

Following the decision taken yesterday to extend article 50 to 31 October, I confirm that subject to the agreement of the House, the House will rise at the close of business today and return on Tuesday 23 April.

More people than ever are watching what is going on in Parliament, and we now have evidence for that. In March, the number of unique viewers on the Parliament Live website exceeded 1 million in a month for the first time. To put that into perspective, the average number of unique views during 2019 has been around 300,000 a month. We might be facing a very challenging time in Parliament, but the silver lining is that huge increase in democratic participation.

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) on his private Member’s Bill having achieved Royal Assent. Finn’s law will help to protect our much-loved service animals.

Finally, I welcome the new hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). Her predecessor was much admired, and he was a keen attendee of business questions. I look forward to her contributions in the Chamber. I wish all Members of the House, their staff and all House staff a very relaxing break and a happy Easter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

Well of course, many of us in this place saw our first black hole when we came into office in 2010 and saw the state of the finances that Labour had left for the United Kingdom, so we have already had our own bit of experience. On a more general point, the hon. Gentleman is right to raise this extraordinary scientific progress, and he will be pleased to know that the UK scores the highest of all countries for having the most highly cited papers in astronomy, physics, Earth observation and planetary science. We remain a leading member of the European Space Agency, which is independent of the EU and allows UK scientists to collaborate with international partners on pioneering space science missions. The UK space sector is growing; it is worth a total of £14.8 billion and employs almost 50,000 people in the UK.

[Chris Bryant]

You enjoyed that, didn’t you?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very interesting point. He will be aware that there are a number of benefits that our older population receive, such as free bus passes, free TV licences and not having to pay for prescriptions, eye tests, hearing tests and so on. Nevertheless, he raises an interesting issue and he might like to seek a Westminster Hall debate so that all hon. Members can share their views on the matter.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am delighted that we are having an Easter recess. At the rate we were going, I thought that we would get to Easter Sunday and the good Lord would be rising again before this House ever did. [Interruption.] Thank you very much! However, I am worried that the business that the Government have announced does not seem to address any of the issues that were raised by Donald Tusk last night. Surely this parliamentary Session has now run its course. We should decide to end it and start all over again. The Government can come up with a new Queen’s speech, which will doubtless contain many interesting things, so that we can really get on with tackling the issues that face this country, including poverty wages, poverty, austerity and local authorities that cannot meet their proper responsibilities.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Well, the hon. Gentleman was doing so well until that last bit. Obviously, the way forward is something that the Prime Minister needs to consider carefully. She will be making a statement to the House shortly, so he will be able to direct his questions to her. When he talks about our economy and the state of our society, he should be pleased that there is an extra £1 billion available for the police, more than £1.3 billion extra available for local councils, more than £1.1 billion extra for our schools, a rise in the national living wage, another rise in the personal allowance, another fuel duty freeze, and a rise in the basic state pension, which is now more than £1,450 a year higher than in 2010. Added to that, more than 3.6 million more people are in work and we have the lowest unemployment since the 1970s. He is rolling his eyes, but this is really good news for real people.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend should refer back to the business statement that I just made, which still stands.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

There seems to be some shenaniganating going on here. The Leader of the House is being very coy, which is not normal for her; she is normally more up front. Maybe we can tease it out of her: is the plan to bring forward just the withdrawal agreement for the motion tomorrow? If that is the case, a lot of us in this House will think that that does not meet the requirement of the withdrawal Act, which states quite categorically that the Government will not be able to ratify the withdrawal agreement unless

“the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown”.

Unless she is going to say now that tomorrow’s motion is properly in line with the Act and would allow ratification, frankly tomorrow is a complete and utter waste of time, and we would be better off voting against her motion later today.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I have tried to be as open as I possibly can on this. As the hon. Gentleman will realise, the fact is that a motion that comes forward tomorrow must enable us to meet the European Council conclusions, which say:

“Any unilateral commitment, statement or other act…should be compatible with the letter and the spirit of the Withdrawal Agreement.”

It must also comply with the Speaker’s ruling, and it must enable the House to move forward. Quite genuinely, of course it will meet UK law, and the reality is that it has not yet been finalised, but it will be brought forward just as soon as possible, in time for the House to discuss the business motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this evening.

Sittings of the House (29 March)

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)]

I beg to move,

That this House shall sit on Friday 29 March 2019.

May I start by saying that I recognise that changes to the sittings of the House agreed at short notice can create inconvenience to Members and their constituents? I know how important constituency work is to all of us, and I regret not being able to give more notice. I do, however, believe that all of our constituents expect the House to continue to make progress at this crucial time. To be of assistance to the House, I can again confirm that, should the House agree to this motion, it is intended that the sitting hours tomorrow will be the same as for a normal sitting Friday, with the House sitting from 9.30 am and the moment of interruption at 2.30 pm. Should any urgent questions be allowed, these would take place from 11 am and the debate would resume following those urgent questions in the usual way. As I said earlier today in my business statement, I join those who recognise the hard work and dedication of the staff of the House and of our civil servants. I thank them for their support to us in this place, and I am very grateful to them in advance for their work tomorrow should this motion be agreed.

As I said to the House during my business statement earlier today, the motion tabled by the Government this afternoon has been prepared in order that it complies with your ruling, Mr Speaker, while also reflecting that the European Union will agree an extension to article 50 until 22 May only if the withdrawal agreement is approved by 11 pm on 29 March. It is crucial, therefore, that we make every effort to give effect to the Council’s decision, and tomorrow’s motion gives Parliament the opportunity to secure that extension. I think we can all agree that we do not want to be in the situation of asking for another extension and facing the potential requirement of participating in European Parliament elections.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Could the Leader of the House read out the motion, so that we know what we will be debating tomorrow?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The motion has been tabled, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to find it in the Table Office. [Interruption.] I am happy to read it out. It is quite lengthy, so I hope Members will bear with me. It reads:

“That this House notes the European Council Decision of 22 March 2019 taken in agreement with the United Kingdom extending the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, which provides for an extension to the Article 50 period to 22 May 2019 only if the House of Commons approves the Withdrawal Agreement by 29 March 2019; notes that if the House does not do so by that date the Article 50 period will only as a matter of law be extended to 12 April 2019 and that any extension beyond 22 May 2019 would require the UK to bring forward the necessary Day of Poll Order to hold elections to the European Parliament; notes that Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement refers to the Political Declaration between the UK and EU agreed on 25 November 2018, but that the EU has stated it remains open to negotiating changes to the Political Declaration; notes that the House is currently undertaking deliberations to identify whether there is a design for the future relationship that commands its support; notes that even should changes be sought to the Political Declaration, leaving the European Union with a deal still requires the Withdrawal Agreement; declares that it wishes to leave the EU with an agreement as soon as possible and does not wish to have a longer extension; therefore approves the Withdrawal Agreement, the Joint Instrument and the Unilateral Declaration laid before the House on 11 March 2019 so that the UK can leave the EU on 22 May 2019; notes that this approval does not by itself meet the requirements of section 13(l)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018; and resolves that it is content to proceed to the next steps of this process, including fulfilling section 13 of this Act.”

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that motions are amendable, and the selection of amendments is a matter for the Speaker.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for reading out the motion; that is helpful for the House. So far as I understand it, if the motion were carried tomorrow, the Government would not be able to ratify the withdrawal agreement treaty. Is that correct?

[Andrea Leadsom]

No. It would mean that the withdrawal agreement Bill would then be before the House.

I think we can all agree that we do not want to be in the situation of asking for another extension and facing the potential requirement of participating in European Parliament elections.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think my right hon. Friend poses an unanswerable question, because of course the ingenuity of the House knows no bounds. What the House has been clear about is that it does not want a no-deal Brexit or a Brexit on WTO terms. I share that desire, but, as we have always been clear, the way to avoid a no-deal Brexit is to vote for the deal. If I may, Mr Speaker, I will quote directly from the European Council conclusions:

“The European Council reiterates that there can be no opening of the Withdrawal Agreement that was agreed between the Union and the United Kingdom in November 2018. Any unilateral commitment, statement or other act should be compatible with the letter and the spirit of the Withdrawal Agreement.”

So all the terms under which the UK leaves the EU are subject to the agreement by this House of the withdrawal agreement.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is potty to announce today that we are going to have the statutory instrument tomorrow evening, at the fag end of the business. That is absolutely ludicrous when we could perfectly easily do it on Thursday.

May I ask the Leader of the House whether we will be sitting on Friday? I have a particular interest: Friday is Brain Tumour Research’s Wear A Hat Day, and it is encouraging everybody around the country to wear a hat to work on that day. As you will know, Mr Speaker, “Erskine May” is now silent, on page 451, about whether we can wear a hat in the Chamber, although I think we are expected to speak uncovered. Would it not be a good idea for the Leader of the House to announce now, if we are sitting on Friday, that we are going to do that on Friday, or if not, that we can all wear hats on Thursday?

[Andrea Leadsom]

Excellent. I once wore a hat because I wanted to take my hat off to the right hon. Baroness Jowell, who sadly is no longer with us, for her brilliance in establishing Sure Start. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that you tolerated my wearing of a hat in honour of what I felt was a very good cause.

The hon. Gentleman asks a very specific question. As he will be aware, at the moment there are no plans to sit on Friday. If there were plans to do that, it would require the passing of a motion to that effect, which the House would have to agree.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 21st March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s young constituents for their commitment to tackling global climate change; they are absolutely right to do so. I am sure that he will acknowledge the UK’s strong record and efforts to tackle global climate change, whereby we have reduced emissions faster than any other G7 nation. The latest figures show that we have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 23% since 2010. In November 2016, we ratified the Paris agreement, which was the first truly global, legally binding agreement to tackle climate change. Of course there is much more that we should and can do, and I am sure that there will be further opportunities given the clear push from young people right across the country. I will take very seriously the hon. Gentleman’s request for a further debate on global climate change, and see what can be done.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I reckon that I have worked out where everything has gone wrong over the last couple of years in this Parliament. We have discovered today from the Foreign Secretary, and now from the Leader of the House, that a new and rather dangerous doctrine has been developed in the Government that, when there is a hung Parliament, it is the duty of MPs—broadly speaking—to support the Government, even if they do not think that it is a very good idea. That is the essence of it, isn’t it? Actually, it should be the other way around. In a hung Parliament, the Government must listen to the whole House.

I have a solution, and I think the Leader of the House can help. When Government Ministers are given their copy of the ministerial code of conduct, they should all also be given a copy of the 1936 book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. Clearly the Prime Minister did not have a copy last night—not least because it guarantees the reader that it will “increase your popularity” and:

“Help you to win people to your way of thinking.”

I am sure that if the Leader of the House could leave here later, pop over to the Prime Minister and give her a copy, she would manage to solve everything, because the key to the book is to always smile and never get cross.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Well, where to start? I may as well cut straight to the chase and say that I actually agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not for one moment saying that all parliamentarians in a hung Parliament should do exactly as the Government say. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that people in a hung Parliament work together. I gave the example of 51 Government Bills having been introduced in this Session, 41 of which have already received Royal Assent. As hon. Members will know, that has happened as a result of great discussion, a huge number of concessions and close collaboration right across the House in order for the Government to achieve a consensus that the House would then support.

My point is not that parliamentarians have to do as the Government say at all, but that parliamentarians should be looking for what they can agree to. I am advocating the Prime Minister’s deal on the very clear grounds that it offers departure from the European Union, but a close and ongoing relationship with our EU friends and neighbours. That seems the right kind of compromise, which all hon. Members could get behind. Nevertheless, should we get to the point of introducing the withdrawal agreement Bill, which is the piece of legislation that would put into law the decision of the House, I have absolutely no doubt that there would be very close collaboration, and many concessions and discussions, in order to get the legislation through. So I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As Parliament’s voice in Government, it is my great pleasure that I often find myself pleading with Government Ministers to listen to the view of Parliament, and I will continue to do so.

[Chris Bryant]

And don’t be cross.

[Andrea Leadsom]

And smile.

[Chris Bryant]

And you, Mr Speaker.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Prime Minister set out some time ago that should the House reject the withdrawal agreement and future declaration, there would be a discussion for the House to decide whether it wished to take leaving the EU without a deal off the table, and then, should the House make that decision, there would be a further discussion on whether the House wishes to seek an extension to article 50. That is the motion we will discuss tomorrow.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just said, tomorrow’s motion will set out the fundamental choices facing the House. If the House finds a way in the coming days to support a deal, that will allow the Government to seek a short, limited, technical extension to article 50 till 30 June 2019, to provide time to pass the necessary legislation and ratify the agreement we have reached with the EU. If the House does not find the way to support a deal in the coming days, and is not willing to support leaving without a deal on 29 March, it is highly likely that the EU will require a clear purpose for any extension, not least to determine its length, and that any extension beyond 30 June 2019 would require the United Kingdom to hold European Parliament elections in May. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The motion, which we now know will be debated tomorrow—doubtless it will be subject to amendments—says that the House has to agree a motion

“approving the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework”

by

“20 March”.

Does that mean that the Government intend to bring forward the same motion that we have dismissed in this Session on Monday or Tuesday next week? If so, I gently suggest to the Leader of the House that that flouts all the conventions that have operated in this House since the 16th century. It has always been held that, if a motion has been dismissed in one Session of Parliament, it cannot be brought again. Clerks regularly refuse to accept ten-minute rule Bills and private Members’ Bills that have been disposed of in the Session. Will we have that motion on Monday or Tuesday? If so, does the Leader of the House confidently expect Mr Speaker to refuse to allow it?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the House has just voted twice on the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) among others. That vote was on the same amendment.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I guess that if the Government have tabled the main motion, they have also tabled the Business of the House motion governing tomorrow, so I do not understand why the Leader of the House cannot just tell us what time the votes will be tomorrow. It would be for the convenience of Members who have families and so on to know, because we are substantially changing the business for one of the most important matters affecting the House. Will it be at 7 o’clock tomorrow evening? Will it be 5 o’clock or 7 o’clock on Thursday?

[Andrea Leadsom]

These are matters for the House to agree.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 7th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend raises a very important matter, and I know she is very knowledgeable in this area. The voisinage arrangement has been in place since 1965 but was suspended by Ireland following a decision by the Irish Supreme Court in October 2016, as she knows. On 26 February, two Northern Ireland fishing vessels were detained, but on 1 March the skippers were not convicted under the Probation Act and the vessels were released. Since the suspension of the arrangement, the UK Government have raised this issue several times and have been clear that we cannot accept continued unequal application indefinitely. We continue to explore solutions to reinstate a level playing field as quickly as possible for the benefit of all our fishermen.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Unfortunately, skin cancer is very much on the rise in the UK, partly because lots of us have skin like mine with freckles and fair hair and are not really built for the sun, but still go on holiday to Spain and other places and do not cover up properly when the sun is out.

May we have a debate on skin cancer, so that more people can be made aware that if they have a dodgy mole, going to the doctor can save their life if it is caught very early; so that everyone covers up their kids, particularly when the sun comes up; and so that no one uses a tanning machine, because, frankly, those things are death machines?

While I am here, let me say this. I am nobody special—I am just one of the many, many hundreds of people who have received diagnoses of skin cancer in the last few weeks, including other Members—but I am enormously grateful for the love that many people have shown in the House, some of them people to whom I have been phenomenally rude across the Chamber. I am not going to stop being rude, but may I just say thank you to those who have been truly, truly lovely, including the Leader of the House herself?

[Andrea Leadsom]

Let me say first to the hon. Gentleman that he is very special to me, and he is very special to many other people both in the House and outside it. He has made some incredibly important points, not the least of which was that his own skin cancer was under his hair. We often put sun cream on the exposed bits, but not necessarily in our hair, because that would be slightly odd. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to wear a hat.

[Chris Bryant]

I have a hat.

Proxy Voting

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

Indeed, I am sad.

I ask the Leader of the House, in all sincerity, if, as I fear and perhaps she fears, the proposal does not go through on the nod on Monday, how soon will she bring back a substantive motion with a vote? The following day, we are expecting votes on Brexit legislation, which means that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who has a new-born baby, could lose out again. I am sure that the right hon. Lady agrees that that is simply not acceptable.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I have certainly made it clear that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) should be able to spend critical time with her baby, and I sincerely hope that she will avail herself either of nodding through, or a pair in the event that proxy voting is not available. However, as I have said, in the event that somebody regrettably decides to object on Monday, I will table a substantive motion as soon as possible.

[Chris Bryant]

As it happens, I do not have children, although I was told categorically by an eight-year-old in Ton Pentre school last week that I have two sons, aged two and six, which goes to show that the internet is not always accurate. Perhaps it was another Chris Bryant.

All my friends in the House who have children say that the most useful thing for them is certainty about when votes will be held and when the end of the day will come. Of late, we have had a lot of Tuesdays and Wednesdays that have gone later than 7 o’clock and votes at strange times, and we do not have any certainty about whether the proposal will be accepted next Monday. I urge the Leader of the House to think again about whether it is possible to have a 45-minute or hour-long debate on Monday, with a vote at the end so that we have a guaranteed chance of getting this through. While we are talking about certainty, many parents are uncertain because there are rumours that there will no longer be a February recess during half-term. Will the right hon. Lady make it clear whether that will happen?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the House has agreed its recess arrangements in February. It is a matter for the House, but I have no plans to change that. I have tabled the motion for Monday and I sincerely hope that it will be successful.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think that we are all incredibly sympathetic to the hon. Lady’s constituents who were given such terrible news in the run-up to Christmas, and we join her in congratulating and thanking all those who made sure that they could still celebrate Christmas. She raises some important points about how businesses behave if they are failing. She will be aware that the Matthew Taylor review has raised some serious issues relating to pensions management and so on, which the Government are looking at closely. I encourage her to apply for an Adjournment debate so that the matter can be raised directly with Ministers.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I say to the Leader of the House that I do not think there is anything wrong with a good flounce—sometimes in life it can be useful—but I do not think that we should flounce out of the European Union. I am concerned that the Solicitor General said that we would manage to have Second Reading of the European Union withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill before Christmas. That cannot now happen until at least 28 January, if at all, and only if next Tuesday we proceed as the Government intend. Therefore, what will the Government do to ensure that we have proper legislation in place before 29 March, and will the Leader of the House seriously consider—do not rule it out now—that we might have to delay leaving beyond that date?

[Andrea Leadsom]

First, I simply concede to the hon. Gentleman that I am quite sure he would be a better flouncer than me in all circumstances.

[Chris Bryant]

Division!

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think it would be agreed unanimously.

[Chris Bryant]

It’s an outrage!

[Andrea Leadsom]

Not in the slightest—we love the hon. Gentleman dearly.

It is absolutely not the Government’s intention or policy to do anything like flounce out of the EU. We are looking at our meaningful vote on Tuesday and it is absolutely our intention that we win that meaningful vote, introduce the withdrawal agreement Bill and have a smooth transition out of the European Union. As the hon. Gentleman will know, my job is to make sure that the legislation passes through both Houses, and it will not surprise him that I look at that issue closely on a daily basis. I am confident that we have enough time to get the withdrawal agreement Bill through both Houses.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman often raises the suppression of religious freedom and is absolutely right to do so. He will be aware that the Government entirely support the rights of all individuals to express their religious preferences. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can raise the matter with Ministers.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am absolutely delighted about “Erskine May” being online, not least because when I called for that on 2 November 2017, both you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House were ever so slightly sniffy about the very idea. I am absolutely delighted that we are united in wanting it online.

It is preposterous for us to delay endlessly the vote on Brexit. If we bump up against 21 January, businesses in this country will be wasting time, energy and money worrying about whether there will be a no-deal situation. We need to get on with it. I say this to the Leader of the House: please ditch all next week’s business. Let us get on with the debate and get on with making a decision. That is what Parliament is for—decisions.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is delighted. I do not think Mr Speaker or I were sniffy.

On the hon. Gentleman’s main point on the meaningful vote, when hon. Members look at themselves in the mirror, they know full well that the country needs a decision to support a withdrawal agreement. We were looking at a decision not to support a meaningful vote. That is precisely why the Prime Minister decided that we would not go ahead with the vote—she was concerned that hon. Members would not support the withdrawal agreement. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come forward with a worked-out and negotiable alternative, that would be great, but the reality is that the Opposition have no alternatives to suggest. All they want to do is have a vote so that they can vote no. The Prime Minister, in the interests of the country, is trying to find a withdrawal agreement that the House will support.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

Let me first point out to my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister was here answering questions on all aspects of the withdrawal agreement. She was not here simply to reassure people; she was listening to all Members. In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, let me say that I think the Prime Minister fully understands that there are serious questions about the backstop, and a desire on the part of Members to see changes in the legal text.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is sad, really: we often boast about our historical freedoms and liberties and we often preach to other countries about how to run parliamentary democracy, but, to be honest, this is a prime example of how not to do it. I would have had respect for the Leader of the House and the Government if they had come forward with a motion saying, “All right, we’ll put it to the House that we are not going to put it to the House,” but they are instead relying on a shabby little trick, where a Government Whip will just shout “Tomorrow,” which in this Parliament does not mean tomorrow: it means mañana; it means never. It is a shabby little trick, and is not the ultimate irony that the Government are preventing the people from having a vote on it and preventing the Commons from having a vote on it, but the House of Lords is going to vote on it tonight? What is good enough for earls and barons is good enough for us.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a bit of parliamentary pantomime. He knows full well that the Government often name tomorrow as the next date for deferring an Order of the Day. So after a First Reading, when naming a date for the Second Reading debate if it is not “Now” then it is “Tomorrow,” and then the Government decide. There is nothing unusual about that at all.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 15th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this point again—it has been raised a number of times at business questions. As I have explained to other hon. Members, the Post Office is moving some of its centres into WH Smith. That is designed not to reduce the services in any way, but to rationalise them. Indeed, in taking on banking and other services, the post office network around the country is often enabling people to get a better service than previously.

[Chris Bryant]

I am delighted that the Leader of the House is staying in her job because I will admit—as long as she does not tell anybody else—that I quite like her. [Interruption.] Blowing kisses is not going to get her anywhere, however.

[Chris Bryant]

Easy!

As the Leader of the House will know, the House passed a Magnitsky-style measure in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The Government have provided three excuses for not doing anything about this yet. One is that it cannot be done until the end of Brexit, and the Foreign Secretary says that that means after the transition period is over. Another reason is that we would have to table statutory instruments and that there is no time for SIs. However, everyone in this House would love to get this done as quickly as possible. Other countries in Europe have already done it, so will she please stay in her job just to get this thing done?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I also enjoy our little altercations across the Floor of the House on so many different subjects. I hear what he is saying, and I would be happy to raise this with Ministers directly on his behalf.

Bullying and Harassment: Cox Report

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is right: it is about leadership. The complaints procedure is vital to give satisfaction, justice and clarity to those who have suffered at the hands of any Member or, indeed, any member of staff, but my hon. Friend is right that leadership is key.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

rose—

[Andrea Leadsom]

I would like to make one point—I think the hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear it—before I give way.

We need to democratise the House of Commons, but governance change cannot and should not happen overnight. The then Public Administration Committee, chaired, as the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is now, by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), said in written evidence to the House of Commons Governance Committee, which held the last review of House of Commons governance in 2014:

“Any structural or organisational change should only be considered as a consequence of a full understanding of the underlying causes of difficulty or failure. If this is not done, structural change, with all the disruption which that involves, will become no more than a distraction. This may be welcomed by those who want to avoid the more difficult, personal causes of problems in the organisation, which are likely to be in the culture. By culture, we mean what is embedded in the attitudes and behaviour of the people in the organisation, and PASC has found this is by far the most important determinant of organisational effectiveness.”

That still rings true—structural change needs to be considered in the context of an organisation’s culture.

[Chris Bryant]

I completely agree with the point that the right hon. Lady just made.

Leadership comes in many different styles. There are autocratic styles of leadership: when I was on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee many years ago, our Committee was run in that way and it was inappropriate. Now most Select Committees are much more likely to work as a team. I wonder whether the House of Commons Commission would be better if it were constituted more like a Select Committee that worked as a team of people, throughout a Parliament, with each individual in the team able to assume responsibility. That might be a better way of leading change within the House.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and I am keen to hear all Members’ views on how we can improve the democracy in this place.

Dame Laura’s report has made it clear that we need to consider first, changing the power balance in this place; secondly, giving staff a stronger voice; and thirdly, addressing how to stop failures at the top infecting our entire workplace. Therefore, one of the questions I would like the House to consider and give views on today is whether the current structure of the House of Commons leadership is fit for purpose.

The Commission has tasked the Commons Executive Board with bringing forward a speedy action plan, and I support that. My vision for a future democratisation of governance is a leadership structure that is fully and fairly representative of all who work here, and accountable for all actions and decisions. Any changes to governance need to be carefully considered, and they need to be fit for a 21st-century Parliament. My three personal tests for considering future proposals for change in the House’s leadership are, first, will they mean that everyone who works here can expect to be treated with dignity and respect? Secondly, will they rebuild the confidence of those who have suffered in the past? Thirdly, do all those who work here feel they have a proper stake in the decisions that affect them?

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

We are all big bus fans, although, sadly, I do not think I have ever taken that bus. My right hon. Friend should certainly challenge any reduction in bus services, and I thoroughly recommend that she raises the matter directly with Ministers to see what pressures can be brought to bear on the Mayor.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House knows that we produced a report on acquired brain injury recently. One of the new statistics is that about 60% of people going into prison, when they have been properly screened, have had a brain injury; many of them did not know that. In January, we are going to have a brain screening session for all Members of Parliament. I wonder whether she could make a room available so that every Member of Parliament can go through the screening that we would like to see for prisoners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I know that my hon. Friend has volunteered at the event for many years, and I understand that everyone who helps out is treated to a feast of stovies or macaroni in the village hall after the display. I absolutely join him in congratulating Kenny Gunn and all the volunteers for everything that they do to make the event bigger and better every year. Fireworks night has a particular historic resonance for us in Parliament, so it is rather fitting to be talking about it at a time when we could say that the debate here has been quite explosive on a few different fronts.

[Chris Bryant]

That was terrible! Resign. Instantly. [Laughter.]

Bullying and Harassment: Cox Report

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend, as a very experienced member of the House Commission, proposes some very sensible and practical ways forward. I am grateful to him for his suggestions and I think that we should consider them at the House Commission on Monday.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I have twice worked for bullies and it is absolutely miserable: one moment you are being lauded with praise and the next moment, you are being cut down to size. You get shouted at and face all sorts of abuse, but the bully does not think that they are bullying you, because they say that at the end of the week, they are always nice to you and give you praise at some point. But that is part of the bullying pattern. My anxiety in all this is that that is the bit we just ignore. We let the bullies continue in their act of denial. How on earth are we going to change that culture? I have a lot of respect for the work that the Leader of the House has done on this issue, but the report criticises the whole Commission and the House processes. I am not sure that it really can be the Commission who takes the next step forward; I wonder whether she would look at a way of making sure that more Back Benchers are involved.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman describes bullying extremely well and I am sure that that will resonate with all hon. Members. I say again that I have seen far too many instances of people standing by, witnessing such things taking place, and I urge all hon. Members to never let that happen again. As I just tried to explain, it is never easy in this Chamber to explain what “something is a matter for the House” means. I understand his point—we want Back Benchers involved—but I say, as I always do: seriously, my door is always open. I am really keen to hear from people. I could point to lots of hon. Members in the Chamber who have come to talk to me about the process during the complaints procedure. It was an entirely cross-party piece of work. There was an open request for people to come forward with ideas, and that request and invitation remains open. However, in terms of the practicality of how we have a review that starts from nowhere, with a group of Back Benchers, I think that it needs to start with the House Commission discussing how we take this forward, and then the House Commission will potentially need to report back to Back Benchers with some ability for them to feed in their thoughts about whether they agree, or do not agree. I need to think about this process.

I say again that this is not a matter for me as a member of the Government. It is for me as the Leader of the House to work with the other commissioners. It is not for me to overrule them; I am only a member of the Commission. Their views are equal to mine, and between us we need to find a way forward, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman says: it needs to be open to all Members to give feedback and also—this is really important—to others working in this place. It cannot be about only us; it must also be about House staff, Members’ staff and so on. It is a large consultation, and we do not want it to take forever, but I absolutely accept his point.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. You are so kind. May we have a debate on parliamentary jiggery-pokery, particularly in relation to private Members’ Bills? A splendid private Member’s Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), is going forward in 10 days’ time, but the Government cannot decide what they are going to do about it. We would like them to support it.

There is another magnificent private Member’s Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), on parliamentary constituencies. It has strong support from Members from across the House, but the Government will not allow it to have a money resolution. Yet next Tuesday we are to have a debate to approve a money resolution relating to the Overseas Electors Bill, even though the Government cannot even get enough Members to serve on the Committee.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I would say to the second-priority Chris that I—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but it was Mr Speaker’s decision—what can I say?

[Chris Bryant]

If you change your mind, I’m the first in line—

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think you should clarify this matter, Mr Speaker. I would be happy to give way to you. [Interruption.] It appears that we do not want to delay and that Mr Speaker does not want to arbitrate on this matter.

I simply do not accept that the Government are blocking progress on private Members’ Bills—far from it. We have seen excellent progress on these Bills. As the hon. Gentleman points out, we will have the chance to debate a money resolution for the Overseas Electors Bill next week. The hon. Gentleman’s own Bill has received Royal Assent, as has the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, which was promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). We have had the money resolution for the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill, which has now completed its Committee stage. A huge number of private Members’ Bills are going through. In the 2005 Parliament, only 22 private Members’ Bills received Royal Assent, whereas 31 did in the 2010 Parliament—if we include the 2015-to-2017 Parliament, the number is more than double the number in the 2005 Parliament. We are making excellent progress.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 6th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is right that buildings with unsafe cladding systems must be made safe without delay. The Government are encouraged that the Peabody Trust, Mace Group and Taylor Wimpey have joined Barratt Homes and Legal & General in doing the right thing by covering the cost of removing and replacing unsafe cladding. We expect all building owners and developers to follow their lead and to protect leaseholders from the costs. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is working with the relevant local authorities to ensure that our expectations are clear to all the building owners and developers concerned.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Russia, I have talked for a long time about the problems facing this country in relation to the Russian Federation, but I urge the Leader of the House to think again about the debate next Wednesday. One of the things that makes this country different from Russia is that we do not put people on trial in Parliament. We have a sub judice rule. It would be wholly inappropriate if prosecuting authorities were to conclude at the end of next week that this House had decided that certain individuals were guilty. I strongly urge her to withdraw that debate next Wednesday. Let us have an Opposition day debate or a debate on anything else—acquired brain injury or my private Member’s Bill spring to mind. We could debate anything, but we should not break that fundamental rule that we do not put people on trial in this Chamber.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I can only reassure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no risk of that happening during a general debate next week about the Salisbury incident.

Proxy Voting

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us something of her experiences, both in the European Parliament and here. She is exactly right: there are some complicated factors to discuss and I look forward to having that discussion as soon as possible.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Whips do get a bit of a bad rap sometimes. I must confess that quite a lot of Whips are among my best friends, including on the Government side of the House, and often they enable Members do their jobs effectively, efficiently and well. However, when we are at a moment such as this, when frankly, a kind of total war is going on on key issues that affect the nation, it is going to be terribly difficult to make these conventions last. We have already had nodding through abandoned. We used to have a tradition that Whips, and Government Whips in particular, never patrolled the Benches inside the Chamber to try to prevent people from moving motions and things like that, but we now see that as standard in all the debates. We have to move forward with a vote on this issue as soon as we possibly can, so that we just take the temperature down a bit.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman is often in this place when I am, and I completely agree with him that we need to continue to listen to people. We need to show people the utmost respect, which I certainly always try to do, and I know that he does, too. My colleagues on the Whips’ Bench are delighted to hear that he considers them to be his friends. I am always very grateful to hear his thoughts on these issues.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for telling us about the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) and her new arrival, Elijah. That is great news for the whole House. We should also celebrate the news from our Liberal Democrat colleague, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who has given birth to Gabriel. So we have some great prophets coming along, and I hope that they will be the foretellers of a fantastic future—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

And angels.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Angels and prophets, indeed. This is a wonderful precedent for this place.

The hon. Lady asked about the business. She will be aware that provisional business is announced for the future, and the business that was announced last week was indeed provisional. The Standing Orders set out that there will be 20 Opposition days, with 17 for the largest party. The Government have a good record on providing Opposition days, and we will continue to do that. I am always happy to consider all reasonable requests.

The hon. Lady asked about the Brexit negotiations. These are complex negotiations, as she has just acknowledged. The White Paper will set out the clear way in which we will give effect to the Cabinet agreement at Chequers. The intention is to stick with the red lines that were set out by the Brexit referendum—that we will be leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, that we will no longer be paying our EU subscription, that we will be ending free movement, that we will be leaving the single market, the customs union, the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, and that we will be able to trade freely with the rest of the world. This is a complicated negotiation, and we are determined to achieve success in it. What this proposal will set out to achieve is that we meet our red lines while also addressing those of the European Union. It is fully our intention that the EU will come to the table and start negotiating with the same level of sincere co-operation that we are all signed up to as members of the EU.

The hon. Lady mentioned by name the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), and not in the most charming of terms. I hope that she warned him she was going to mention him. Perhaps she would like to pay tribute to his years as a Member of the European Parliament, which have given him unique insight into the managing of the day one preparations. That will be vital for our country.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the visit of the President of the United States. Is it not fantastic that we live in a free democracy where we are free to set out our own thoughts? Is it not also great that our Prime Minister is meeting the President in order to set out those areas where we want to collaborate and also those areas where we disagree? We made it very clear at the time that we did not agree with the idea of separating children from their parents, and we were pleased that the President signed an Executive order to put a stop to that. That was very important.

The hon. Lady asked whether we could have a debate on free trade deals. Yes, we can—on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week. I hope that she is pleased with that. She also asked whether we could have some Home Office questions answered. We have Home Office questions on Monday. I therefore hope that she is happy with the progress that is being made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is always full of great ideas for how to proceed. I suggest that he takes this up with the new Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union in the statement to follow.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Here is the problem: the Government do not have a majority, there is a majority against every single option that has thus far been presented on Brexit and trying simply to unite the Conservative party will, in the end, fail. If the Government are to act in the national interest, rather than in just the party interest, they will have to stop all this jiggery-pokery about trying to hide things from the rest of the House by presenting the White Paper only when the Minister sits down after talking about it. All of that has to stop. The House has to act in the national interest, and the Government have to stop all the nonsense and start bringing all of us on board, otherwise they will be relying on emergency powers to take us through the next year.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong on all counts. He will be aware that the Cabinet met last Friday. Today is Thursday, a few days later, and the Government are coming forward with that White Paper to set it out to the entire House, with a debate next week. The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) has already complained about the fact we have facilitated a debate.

My right hon. Friend the new Brexit Secretary is about to come to the House to make a statement to enable all hon. Members to quiz him. What the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and all hon. Members need to understand is that this is a complicated negotiation and that what the Prime Minister is seeking to do is to ensure that we can stick to the red lines we have agreed while, at the same time, sticking to the red lines that the EU has set out. That makes it extraordinarily complicated but also extraordinarily clever, and it is worthy of very careful discussion and debate. [Interruption.]

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am a huge fan of the daily mile—I would like us to be doing it ourselves here in Parliament, Mr Speaker. Programmes such as the daily mile are simple and inclusive and are a very good way to include all children in physical activity. Our childhood obesity plan sets out that primary schools should deliver at least 30 active minutes each day through break times, PE, extra-curricular clubs and so on, and over 1,200 schools in England have already signed up for the daily mile.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am enormously grateful to the Leader of the House that we are having our debate on acquired brain injury, not least because the concussion suffered by the Liverpool goalkeeper in the recent Champions league match shows absolutely that football has not yet got this right: it should not be the club doctor who makes the decision about whether somebody continues to play; it should be an independent medical assessment. I hope the Leader of the House will make sure that it is not just a Health Minister who is present for this debate, but that the whole of the Government are represented, because there are so many issues for so many different Departments. I am grateful, however.

[Andrea Leadsom]

First, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is pleased. Secondly, he raises a very important point. Acquired brain injury can affect any person through any reason, whether a violent attack, a sporting accident or an industrial accident. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will make those representations very clearly, and I for my part will ensure that the Government are listening carefully.

Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House, and I am enormously grateful to the Government Whip who was enormously helpful in getting my Bill to this stage, but I do not think the Leader of the House should pray me in aid on what the Government are doing. I want her to clarify precisely what she said to the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). Is she saying that the Government might bring forward a money resolution if, for instance, the House were to vote down the Boundary Commission’s recommendations? From the Second Reading debate, it seems pretty likely that that is what will happen.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will clarify what I said to my right hon. Friend. We will keep the money resolution under review, and once we have seen the existing boundary review’s recommendations and been able to consider them, we will think carefully about what to do next with this private Member’s Bill. It is by no means blocked, but at the moment the Government are considering how to take it forward.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Leader of the House give way again?

[Andrea Leadsom]

No, fond as I am of the hon. Gentleman.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. If I remember rightly, there is a big employment issue in his constituency with DVLA staff. [Interruption.] Perhaps that is not correct. Well, I encourage the hon. Gentleman to take up the issue, perhaps in an Adjournment debate, but I have every sympathy for what he says.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am so chuffed that the Government are now adopting all my legislative proposals that I have another one. We should have an acquired brain injury Bill to guarantee that anybody who has a traumatic brain injury and receives hospital treatment then gets a rehabilitation prescription, so that they can be brought back to as full a life as possible. I know that the Leader of the House is sympathetic, but if she is not quite convinced of my Bill, perhaps she could come to the meeting on concussion in sport on Tuesday morning that has been organised by the all-party parliamentary group on acquired brain injury or to the lobby meeting that we are organising on Wednesday afternoon in Committee Room 17 after Prime Minister’s questions—I know she is free—to push for this change.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is delighted with the progress of his private Member’s Bill. He has raised the important issue of acquired brain injuries before, and ABI can be devastating not only for the victim but for their family and friends. He is right to keeping pressing for a change, and I am very sympathetic. If he wants to bring forward specific proposals, I am sure that Ministers would be keen to hear them.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend raises an important issue. I am aware that TSB’s chief executive was on the radio this morning to apologise for the awful service that customers have received over the past week and that he pledged to sort it out. My right hon. Friend is right that there are times when personal intervention is necessary to ensure that constituents can access their money, and I encourage her to seek a debate on the subject.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Acquired Brain Injury Week is coming up in a few weeks’ time, so may we have a debate on the condition in Government time, because it is a hidden epidemic that affects hundreds of thousands of families every year? It is not just about health; it is about the criminal justice system, the education system, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Defence. The Leader of the House is so nice, so will she—[Interruption.] Well, she supports my private Member’s Bill. Will she please ensure that we can have a debate in Acquired Brain Injury Week?

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is concerned, as I am, about what has happened in Northamptonshire County Council, and the new interim group leader is taking swift steps to try to improve the situation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a statement about the council’s future—hopefully as early as next week.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The number of ambulance staff and other emergency workers who nowadays are faced with sexual assaults is rising dramatically. Unfortunately the police and the other prosecuting authorities quite often refuse to take such assaults very seriously, but there is a possible legislative answer. Would it not be a good idea if, when my private Member’s Bill, the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill, comes back for its remaining stages on 27 April, the Government were to support my amendment to include sexual assault as an aggravating factor?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his private Member’s Bill, which the Government were delighted to support. It is absolutely vital that we protect our emergency workers from any form of attack. I was not aware of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, but I will certainly take that away and look at it very carefully.

Treatment of House of Commons Staff

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I can certainly tell the hon. Lady that it was the working group’s ambition that all those who work here would have access to the independent complaints procedure. As I have said to other hon. Members, it is our intention to look at that again.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Even today, the vast majority of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students in school will at some point or other in their school career face horrific instances of bullying, which is why they are six times more likely than their straight counterparts to take their own lives. Many schools have said, “Oh, let’s build a tolerant school,” but to homosexuals that sometimes feels as though we are being tolerated—we are being put up with. Is the key word not “respect”—respect for one another, whatever our political views, whatever our gender, whatever religious views we have or whatever any part of our background? The only way we are going to be able to change that culture in here is if we make sure that every single one of us is fully and properly trained, not only the first time we come into this House, but every time we are returned by our voters.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is right that, 100 years after the first women got the right to vote, we have made huge progress in advancing women’s rights, but he is also right that there is a long way to go. Vicious and personal online abuse has no place in our public life. We are doing several things. First, we are introducing a new annual internet safety transparency report. Secondly, the Prime Minister announced this week that the Law Commission will review the legislation relating to offensive online communications. And thirdly, a social media code of practice will be published later this year setting out clearly the minimum standards expected of social media platforms.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Can we have a debate in Government time on acquired brain injury? It is a delight that, thanks to the introduction of major trauma centres across the country, 500 more people are kept alive every year, but unfortunately more than a quarter of those major trauma centres have no rehabilitation consultant, so people are not able to get the important support they need to get back on their feet and able to look after themselves. We can make a real difference to people’s lives if only we try hard.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s question. I recently met a constituent whose husband had been brain injured by thugs, and the situation is absolutely terrible both for the victim and for their family. The hon. Gentleman may wish to raise this directly with Health Ministers at departmental questions.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

Yes. The new procedure is designed to cover all the people who work in this place—all pass holders—and indeed those who work in our constituency offices, with the exception for the time being of House staff because they are already subject to the respect policy agreed some time ago, which protects them from issues of bullying and harassment. We have agreed with the House authorities that there will be consultation to consider whether all House staff should also come under this procedure in due course. To be specific, it will include contractors coming to this place, all those with parliamentary passes, Lobby journalists, staff of Members and Peers and those who support all-party parliamentary groups.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am all for robust debate and even occasionally a witty heckle or two, but one of the worst forms of bullying in a playground is when a bunch of kids gang up on another child. That is sort of what we do every Wednesday afternoon in Prime Minister’s questions, is it not? When somebody we do not like is called, there are groans from Members on the other side of the Chamber, as if to suggest that they are less important than anybody else. We praise somebody from our own side and all too often the Whips on either side deliberately try to shout down people on the other side of the Chamber. If we are really going to tackle bullying, are we not going to have to tackle the whole culture of the way in which we do our business?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. This procedure seeks to change the culture in this place. We all have our own personal opinions about different activities—what is right and what is wrong—but what is very important is how the complainant feels. By having this independent procedure, it will be possible for an individual to go and talk to somebody to receive support and guidance and, where necessary, to have an investigation if it is felt that something is serious and needs to be addressed. Once we see the impact that that has on people—not necessarily Members of this place; it could be anybody who works on the parliamentary estate—and people start to see that there are consequences, that will change the culture in this place. My ambition is that, over time, we become the best example of how a Parliament treats all its staff and workforce with respect and dignity.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very concerning point about the debts people get into by using these high-cost lenders to facilitate the purchase of essential white goods, furniture and so on. I know from my time as City Minister that the FCA takes this incredibly seriously. It has capped the interest rates that such companies are allowed to charge, and it is doing further work to ensure that we protect consumers from the practices of some of those companies.[Official Report, 6 February 2018, Vol. 635, c. 6MC.]

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Now that the House has made the in-principle decision on what we are going to do about restoration and renewal, may I urge the Leader of the House to get together her ministerial colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Work and Pensions to put together a parliamentary skills strategy? We are going to need thousands of people working on this building, with high-tech engineering skills and craft trade skills that currently are not available in this country. This is an opportunity for every constituency in the land to have apprenticeships, with apprentices working here on the building.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his tenacity and his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, on succeeding in her amendment yesterday. I am delighted that the House voted to take action. As he rightly points out, there are huge opportunities, and in some cases those are already being fulfilled. For example, as he will know, the repairs to the cast-iron roofs are being carried out in the UK. There will be lots of opportunities for new apprenticeships, however, and I can absolutely assure him that as Leader of the House I will be taking every opportunity to create jobs for young people in the UK.

Restoration and Renewal (Report of the Joint Committee)

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I think part of the role of the delivery authority will be to look at the best combination of cost, respect for our parliamentary democracy and, of course, the right solution for this Palace, which is what this debate is all about.

If motion No. 2 is successful, the sponsor board and delivery authority must consider three options: first, full decant; secondly, partial decant with access to one Chamber at all times; and thirdly, full decant with a parliamentary foothold, allowing for parliamentary access during the works, such as to Westminster Hall and Elizabeth Tower. It is important to note that the second motion before the House today does not commit to a final decision. By asking a delivery authority to further evaluate those three options, parliamentarians and the public can be confident that the delivery authority will take into account the risks, costs and benefits of each approach, as well as accommodating the needs of our parliamentary democracy, before recommending its final, preferred, fully costed option in 12 to 18 months’ time. The motion allows those who support the Joint Committee’s recommendations to see them properly stress-tested.

For the clarification of Members, motion No. 2 differs from amendment (b) to motion No. 1 in two key ways. First, the amendment recommends a single option of full decant. The first problem with this is the lack of decant accommodation available to us under the current plans until 2025. The amendment does not allow us to proceed any quicker with a full programme of work than motion No. 2 allows for. The second problem is the fact that the Joint Committee report itself acknowledged that, while recommending full decant, it had not fully costed that option. Amendment (b) therefore does not settle the issue of value for taxpayers’ money.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

But the problem is that neither motion makes a decision, and in the end this place is here to make decisions on behalf of the nation. It is time we got a grip and made a decision. I do not mind what the decision is in the end, but make a decision we must, surely to God.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As several others have already said, this is not primarily about us; it is about the safety of the thousands of people who come to visit the building, the 8,000 who work in it, and the 15,000 who have passes.

The hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) was absolutely right to say that it is crazy that great big scaffolding has been put up in the cloisters to make work possible on one of the most beautiful bits of the Palace, one of the other bits that survived the 1834 fire—the cloisters that were put in by Henry VII and then Henry VIII. The problem is that at the moment we simply do not have the capacity and the capability within the House authorities to get those major pieces of work done in the House. That means that parts of the building are falling apart, water is coming in where it should not, and we are degrading a national asset. That is why it is so important, as the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) said, to set up a proper sponsor body and delivery authority to do this properly—to bring in really high-quality staff and to make sure the work is delivered on time and on budget, as we can do in this country.

In all honesty, motion No. 1, if left unamended, says, broadly speaking, “Let’s not do anything in this Parliament.” It is not the long grass; it is the very, very long grass. I believe that would be an utter dereliction of our duty, which is why Historic England, who are, after all, the Government’s own advisers on the built heritage in this country, have said that if we were to go down that route, they would have to put this building on the at- risk register. That is a profoundly shocking thing for us to be told if we are not going to take action.

Motion No. 2 is mildly better. I am a bit disappointed in the Leader of the House that she is not going any further than that motion, because it also means that we refuse to make a clear decision now. It means that we try to set up a sponsor body and a delivery authority, for which we want to get the best people, without giving them a clear direction of travel. It means that they will be repeating the work that was done by the Joint Committee.

We produced our report 16 months ago and it is only now that we are getting the debate, so my bet is that when this sponsor body reports, with the three options that it has looked at, the Government will not want to table the motions. There will be a general election coming up; there will be some issue that has to be sorted out, and the debate will be another two years after that. I say to hon. Members that if they are thinking of voting for motion No. 2, they will have to make this decision all over again in four years’ time, by which time the risk will have increased—and the cost.

That is why I support amendment (b) to motion No. 1. It implements the unanimous recommendations of the Joint Committee and the Public Accounts Committee; it sets up a sponsor body and a delivery authority; and it takes an in principle decision. It is the only way to take an in principle decision today.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I just want to set the record straight, because the hon. Gentleman is attributing inaccuracies to my remarks. Motion No. 2 will ensure that the best combination of urgent action can be taken in a cost-effective way. The delivery authority will come back to this House with a final preferred solution within 12 to 18 months and with proper costings. As for his proposal to go down just one route, his own Joint Committee acknowledged in its report that it had not done the costings properly.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, we disagree, because I know what has happened over the last 10 years. Governments have repeatedly fought shy of bringing motions to the House. I have enormous respect for the Leader of the House. She has worked very hard on this, but as she said to me last week, it may be that somebody else is Leader of the House in future and that person might not be so keen on bringing anything to the House. My guess is that when we get closer to a general election, no Government will want to bring the matter back to the House. Therefore, much as I admire and respect her, I just do not think that her solution is the answer.

I want to say just a few other things. The first is about trying to stay in the building while the work is being done. I appeal to colleagues to think hard about that. We are talking about 10 times as much work happening on a daily basis as is happening now. That is 10 times as many people hammering, drilling, sanding down buildings, moving cabling, bringing in vast amounts of material and all the rest, and 10 times as many portakabins. Earlier today I was on the roof of Westminster Hall, looking at the work being done there. Because people have complained about the noise, the people there are only able to work at night, and guess what that has done to the budget? It has tripled it. When work was being done on the Royal Gallery, the House of Lords said, “We can’t hear ourselves think,” and so decided that the work could be done only at weekends and at night, and guess what? That added £1 million to the work. The truth of the matter is that if we try to stay, we will dramatically increase the cost of the work, and we will be going bananas.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am of course very happy to congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s local councillor who is working on that important programme. It is vital that we do anything we can to prepare young people for adulthood, and for a successful and emotionally secure life. For my own part, I strongly favour even earlier intervention—in the perinatal period; I just have to make that clear.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am absolutely delighted that the Leader of the House thinks that a “very sensible”—her words—amendment has been tabled to the restoration and renewal motion. I take that to mean the one that I have signed, along with the Chairs of 11 Select Committees, including several Conservatives. I hope that that means that she will be able to vote for it, because we will have a completely free vote and therefore Ministers will be free to do exactly what they want so that we make the right decision for the future of this country. Will she tell us at what time the votes will be next Wednesday?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting thoughts into my mind about how I might vote. I will look at what amendments are tabled and make my decision, as will all Members, so that we reach the best solution that suits the desires of most Members. We cannot say categorically what the timing next week will be—we can never do that—but this will be the second debate on Wednesday 31 January.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

As ever, my hon. Friend represents his constituents extremely well. He may wish to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can raise that particular issue.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Happy St Thomas’s day, Mr Speaker—to be precise. I am delighted that the Leader of the House has said that we are moving the date for the debate on restoration and renewal, because it is better that the whole House should be able to come to a proper decision. May I just say to her that I can help her with this as I have found time on 15 January when we can do it? The Second Reading of the Space Industry Bill took less than two hours in the House of Lords, so I do not see why it should take any more time here, and we can use the rest of the day to do R and R and come to a proper decision. Incidentally, IPSA has said that, next year, if Members want staff to be paid before Christmas, they should all say “aye” today, and it will do it properly next year.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

That point was discussed a great deal by the working group, and it was recognised that there would have to be certain limitations. We could otherwise theoretically be listening to allegations that were 40 or 50-years-old and the people against whom such allegations are made may no longer be living, for example. The rules need to be carefully thought through, but it is absolutely our intention that people who have current investigations or allegations should be able to seek access to this independent complaints body, even though the body may have particular reasons for not choosing to take up the allegations.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

There are some awful employment practices in Parliament. I know of MPs shouting at their staff till they cry, never advertising for staff before they appoint, interviewing on their own without anybody else in the room, not going through a proper shortlisting process—all sorts of terrible practices. Would not the best thing be for us to have a proper human resources service available through the House so that all MPs, the moment they arrive here, have a proper opportunity, especially if they have never employed or recruited people before, to learn good practice from the beginning?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The working group has taken evidence on and considered that point, and the overwhelming evidence is that Members of Parliament need to continue to directly employ their staff. It was very clear from staff evidence, however, that support for good employment practices—the provision of independent advice on employment matters—was needed for Members’ staff. It was also clear, as I mentioned in my statement, that training—mandatory and voluntary—should be made available not just to Members but to staff. Many staff, for example, asked for proper inductions so that when they come here they can be taught where the Table Office is and so on without having to ask other people’s advice. We have an opportunity to set right some things ranging from the fairly basic all the way up to people understanding thoroughly what constitutes bullying and harassment, including sexual harassment, what constitutes a proper appraisal, and so on. Many Members across the House already have that experience, but not all of them, and we should make it the case that every Member—every employer in this place—has access to that training.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Again, I completely share this concern about homelessness and rough sleeping. It is a huge worry across the House, and I encourage all hon. Members to consider combining to hold a Back-Bench debate on the subject. We have implemented the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), and we have allocated £550 million to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping through to 2020. We have also provided £10 million of funding to support eight new social impact bond projects, so that we can give targeted support to the most difficult issues around rough sleeping.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am grateful that the Leader of the House is thinking of moving the debate on restoration and renewal to a different date, because I think it is better not to have it on a Thursday. May we also have a debate on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, specifically because of the way in which our staff are treated? Most employers in this country now bring forward the December staff salary payment to before Christmas. Why on earth cannot IPSA do that?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very interesting point, which I would be happy to look into on his behalf.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

First, I congratulate all those who are taking part in those plays at Christmas time. The pantomime is such good fun—my family continues to enjoy it.

[Chris Bryant]

Oh no it’s not.

[Andrea Leadsom]

It’s behind you.

It is important that we continue to enjoy and support these local venues, and the arts are a vital part of a thriving UK economy. The right hon. Lady will be pleased to know that there are Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport questions next week. She will be able to raise the issue of how this Government continue to support the arts—as we do—and she will have the chance, before Christmas, to put her questions to Ministers.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

Mr Speaker, I am sure you and I would thoroughly enjoy such a visit. My hon. Friend represents a very beautiful constituency, with that world- famous cathedral dedicated to St Edmund. It is great that he has been commemorated in this way, and I am delighted to share her pleasure at the celebrations taking place.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am not at all reassured by what has been said about Russia, because the answer that the Leader of the House gave today was completely different from what the Prime Minister said, and what the Foreign Secretary said in Committee. The Prime Minister says, “Mr Putin, we know what you are up to.” Well, could she come and tell us what he is up to, because it seems to include targeting individual Members of this House on a regular, daily basis and making sure that the democratic process is undermined? It did not reassure me to hear that she says they have not seen “successful” examples. Well, I think they were pretty successful in the Brexit referendum.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The Prime Minister was quite clear that we are taking this extremely seriously, and that she is gravely concerned. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are investing nearly £2 billion to protect the UK from cyber-attack. We have been absolutely clear about the work we are undertaking to ensure that there is no interference in the electoral process. The Government are continuing to work with the Electoral Commission on the issue of imprints on electronic materials. I realise that the hon. Gentleman will never be satisfied. He may wish to seek an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate in order to make sure that a Minister comes to answer his specific concerns.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank my hon. Friend for making those two specific suggestions. She asked about the notification of the expansion of the helpline services. I know that Mr Speaker has asked that an email should go out from the Clerks of both Houses today, and I think that it has already been sent. It contains specific advice on the alternatives available to people who wish to make a complaint. My hon. Friend has suggested posting helpline information on the backs of lavatory doors, and I think that that is a very good idea. My office has contacted the communications team in the Clerk’s office to suggest ways in which we could further ensure that people are aware of the helpline. She also suggested establishing a staff Select Committee. I am delighted that we have representatives of MAPSA and Unite actively on the working party, and I am sure that we will want to consider how staff can continue to be involved in the review of the system.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

As warmly as I feel towards the Leader of the House’s efforts in this area, I think that the composition of the working party is not right. It is heavily overloaded with MPs and with the hierarchy within the political parties as well. One of the really big issues here is how very young, junior members of staff feel when they are being bullied or sexually harassed by someone who holds their life or their career in the balance because of the flow of patronage in Parliament. I note that there are no lesbian or gay members of the working party, despite the fact that issues can arise if a young man or woman wants to make an allegation about their boss that could in effect involve outing themselves or the person concerned. I hope that the Leader of the House will look again at the composition of the working party. However, my biggest anxiety of all is that we should have justice for both sides. If we just have trial by the newspapers, or trial by the front page, that is not justice for the people who feel that they have been abused and want to make allegations; nor does it provide justice for those at the other end. I remember, in 2003, a journalist from The Mail on Sunday coming up to me in the Strangers bar and saying, “We’re all taking bets on when you’ll commit suicide. I hope it will be before Christmas.”

[Andrea Leadsom]

Gosh, I am so sorry to hear that. I really sympathise with the hon. Gentleman on that last point. That is really, truly appalling. We all recognise the challenge of living in the public eye, and allegations that are either spurious, malicious or designed to hurt are often made against individuals. That is not right. We are seeking to provide justice for those who work here at all levels, whether they are young and extremely inexperienced or have been here for a long time, whether they are LGBT+ or straight, and whatever their race or ethnic background. We are seeking to ensure that there is justice for all. The hon. Gentleman has raised some important points. As I have said, I am pleased that we have two members of staff who represent MAPSA and Unite on the working party, but we will also be hearing from individual members of staff, either in person or in writing if they do not want to come forward in person. We will be seeking to obtain the broadest possible amount of information from those who work here to ensure that we make the right decisions.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I find myself instinctively agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. We need to find a way forward that takes into account strong local views about fracking while also weighing up the benefits to our economy. The economy absolutely needs to continue depending on gas as we transition to sources that involve lower carbon dioxide emissions, as we will need make that transition through a greater use of gas. There is a strong case—in terms of economics and climate change—for fracking, subject to very strong regulation, given that gas is available as a natural resource in the United Kingdom. We need to properly assess the balance between local views, which can be very negative, and the economic imperative for the nation. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to seek a Back-Bench debate so that others who have the same dilemma can also be heard.

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I wanted to raise this now because it relates to our earlier discussion about “Erskine May”. There was a bit of a difference of opinion as to whether “Erskine May” is online. It is available on the intranet, as a 1,000-page PDF, which expressly says it is not to be used by the public. What I am asking—I hope the commitment from the Leader of the House is clear—is that we now make it available to the whole country, because the people of this country are demanding that “Erskine May” be available to them without their having to buy a copy.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) might like to start a petition. Once he is able to show 100,000 signatures—no, I jest. Obviously he is absolutely right: everybody is clamouring in their living rooms for their own online copy of “Erskine May”. As I said to him earlier, I will look into this. I agree that it should be available online, and I will see what can be done.

Sexual Harassment in Parliament

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Monday 30th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

It is absolutely the intention that the review look at all issues of misdemeanour and misconduct, including sexual harassment and bullying, as well as other forms of uncomfortable behaviour that is perpetrated on members of staff in this place.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

When I was a curate in the Church of England 30 years ago, one of my very close colleagues confided in me that he had been raped by a very senior member of the Church of England clergy. My friend was understandably terrified about telling the police or anybody else that this was the truth. He felt suicidal. He did not want others to know what had happened to him, quite understandably—he was the victim, not the perpetrator. I make absolutely no criticism of my friend. The senior cleric concerned had a great deal of protection from the establishment, including from certain members of the royal family. He subsequently —thank God—went to prison. The Church’s instinct was to protect itself as the institution. Is that not always the danger? Is not the one thing we must learn from all this that the best way to protect the institution is actually to protect the victims and to put our own house in order? May I make just one tiny suggestion? Anytime an MP interviews somebody for a new job, they should have a human resources professional sitting alongside them at the interview.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises a terrible and horrifying case. He is right to point out that the victim should not be the one to suffer in the way that his friend obviously did. The point he raises is very important. We need to ensure that this is not the House protecting itself, but Parliament protecting all those who come here to work and to try to make their country a better place.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

First, I join the hon. Lady in wishing New Zealand well with a new female leader. In this Chamber, of course, we have had two now—aren’t we doing well—but I am not sure that the Opposition have ever welcomed the achievements of women on my side of the House. Nevertheless, I am very happy to welcome the achievement of the people of New Zealand.

Turning to the hon. Lady’s specific questions, she will be aware, I hope, that my office rang hers earlier this morning to give her advance notice of the laying of the WMS, which was in fact published at 10.30, as is appropriate. It has, indeed, been published; that is confirmed—it is online. I am sure that she is simply incorrect to suggest that it was not published.

The hon. Lady asks whether a Minister will attend the House. It is intended that Ministers will attend in person wherever possible, but it is possible that a written ministerial statement will be provided from time to time. It is also intended that 12 weeks is the maximum time before a ministerial response is provided.

The hon. Lady asks if Standing Orders need to be amended—they do not. She says there was no discussion of this with business managers. As the Government’s representative in Parliament and Parliament’s representative in government, it is for the Leader of the House to listen to all Members. It is Members across the House who have been urging a response from the Government, and that is what are responding to in my statement today.

The hon. Lady talks about the R and R options that have been put before the House. It is absolutely right that we do the work to ensure the best value for taxpayers’ money. It has been clear for a long time that the Labour party does not care about taxpayers’ money. Opposition Members constantly talk about just going with three options in front of this House, but the reality is that the full costs of each option have not yet been bottomed out. That is why it is important that we set up an independent delivery authority that can assess the costs in a short space of time—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Eighteen months.

[Andrea Leadsom]

No, 12 to 18 months. The authority can assess the costs in a short space of time to properly bottom out the costs.

This is not a blank cheque. We must get the best possible value for taxpayers’ money in restoring this Parliament for future generations, and Members right across this House should support that. It is right that both Houses take a decision on whether to establish this independent authority that will look at the full costs and then make a recommendation for a further vote by both Houses. It is also right that the sponsor board that oversees the work of that delivery authority has strong parliamentary representation.

The hon. Lady asked what the universities’ response should be to a question about their courses. Right across this House we support free speech. Our universities are total bastions of free speech, too, and they should welcome exploration of all sides of an argument. I will leave that point there.

The hon. Lady asks about refunds to claimants following the judicial review. I understand that that was fully discussed at the Justice Committee earlier this week, so I urge her to look at the record. I can write to her separately with information about that discussion.

The hon. Lady then asked about Brexit. I say again that the Prime Minister set out in her Florence speech a very generous and collegiate offer to the European Union. I am delighted that, following the European Council, there has been a warm and improving tone from European leaders about the prospects of moving on to discuss trade and co-operation across all areas. The Government remain committed to getting an excellent deal for the United Kingdom and for our EU friends and neighbours, and we believe that that will perfectly possible to achieve before March 2019.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. We have all been disgusted by some of the recent reports of the use of some appalling language, and it is right that we should have a debate on that subject. We have already had a debate in Government time on abuse and intimidation during the general election, but it is right that all Members, as the Prime Minister said, are careful and considered in how they refer to other people. Things go much broader that that, however, and we have seen an enormous amount of abuse against people in public life. We want to encourage people to feel that they can come into public life and not receive that torrent of abuse, so I would be happy to provide any support that my hon. Friend needs to bring forward such a debate.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Can we have an urgent debate, in Government time, on whether Ministers understand the concept of urgency? The Leader of the House said earlier that the state of the Palace of Westminster is an urgent problem, and the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, which was chaired by her predecessor but two, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)—we are getting through Leaders of the House at quite a pace—agreed that there is an impending crisis in this building.

The Joint Committee’s report was published on 8 September 2016, with the guarantee of a vote by Christmas last year. Now the Leader of the House is saying that we will have a debate by the end of this year, but we will not make a decision then—we are going to delay it for another 18 months. Honestly, this is downright irresponsible. Just let the House make a decision, if you understand the concept.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Mr Speaker, do you understand the concept? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misspoke.

This is an urgent matter for Parliament to resolve. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, since I became Leader of the House, the House of Commons Commission, chaired by Mr Speaker, has let some contracts to ensure that urgent repairs to the House are carried out and to ensure that we have a safe space in which to work while the decision is taken. As I have already made clear, we have to ensure value for taxpayers’ money. The Joint Committee made a recommendation without being in a position to pin down the entire costs of its proposed option. It is essential that that work is done, and it will be done as quickly as possible.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)]

I can only say again that I have absolute assurance that the statement was published at 10.30 am.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not alleging anything about the Leader of the House, but the truth of the matter is that the statement was not available on the parliamentary website, nor in the Vote Office, until 11.30 am. The only reason why this matters is that none of us would want the Leader of the House to be ill-advised by others and to be living in a state of ignorance about what is actually going on. Of course, the written ministerial statement was about the timeliness of responses, so it would seem appropriate to get it right.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 19th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on that marathon; I remember her absolute exhaustion the following day, and we were all in awe of her achievement. She raises an incredibly important point about how screening, particularly for heart issues, can save lives. I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate on that very important matter.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am enormously grateful to the Leader of the House for her personal support for my private Member’s Bill, which we will be debating tomorrow. I wonder whether she could do something else to help. As things stand, if Second Reading goes through tomorrow, as I hope it will—many Members had their photograph taken yesterday in support of the Bill—and even if we get it through Committee in a couple of weeks, it will not reach remaining stages until the end of April. That is a long time. If the Government wanted to—if it had a gap in the legislative programme, perhaps—it could decide to adopt the Bill and give it Government time on the Floor of the House before Christmas, so that we could get it on the statute book.

[Andrea Leadsom]

As the hon. Gentleman is being so charming and persuasive, I absolutely assure him that the Government are behind his Bill. It is entirely right that we should protect emergency workers from abuse and violence and completely wrong that they should be attacked by people whom they seek to help. I assure him that we will make our best efforts to bring forward his Bill as soon as we can.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

There is a great deal of consultation going on, as the hon. Gentleman knows, between the devolved Administrations and the Westminster Government. That will continue, and there will be plenty of opportunities for further consultation in the weeks and months ahead.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

When Tony Newton was Leader of the House in 1995, in a Conservative Government, he accepted that if the Government lost their majority in the House of Commons they should not have a majority in the Committees of this House considering legislation. Why on earth does this Conservative Leader of the House think that this Government are any different? They have no majority in the House; they should have no majority in the Committees.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The House is speaking through the usual channels about the business of the House and there will be more discussion about that next week. Motions will be on the Order Paper in good time for the House to be able to consider and discuss it.

Scheduling of Parliamentary Business

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

As soon as possible, and within the normal timeframe for establishing Select Committees.

The Opposition make a comparison with the 2015 general election, saying that, by the summer recess following the vote, Select Committees had been established and Opposition days had been held. However, the election in 2015 was in May, not June, and there were 32 sitting days between the Queen’s Speech and the summer recess. Between the Queen’s Speech and the summer recess this year, there will have been only 18 sitting days.

Let us look at our record on providing Opposition day debates versus the record when the Labour party was in government. Let us use the Opposition’s assumption that each Session should be one year and that there should be 20 Opposition days each year. On their reckoning, between 1997 and 2010, when Labour was in office, Opposition parties were short by 35 Opposition days. By the same calculation, and using the Opposition’s assessment, they have had one more day than their allocation between 2010 and today.

[Chris Bryant]

I have to say that it is a bit rich of the Leader of the House to give us the number of days between the Queen’s Speech and the recess, since the Government set the date of the recess and delayed the date of the Queen’s Speech. In 1997, how many days were there before the recess? Two. In 2001? One. In 2005? Five. In 2010? Two—and that is when the Conservatives had to cobble together a ludicrous Government. In 2015? Five. So she is talking through a hole in her head. [Interruption.]

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 13th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sure all Members will share my hon. Friend’s disgust at some of the activities of rogue and unfair private parking operators, and he will be pleased to know that the Government have taken steps to tackle this, including the banning of wheel-clamping and towing. Consumer protection regulations have also been amended to make it simpler and clearer for consumers to bring their own actions to seek compensation when they have been the victims of misleading or aggressive debt collection practices, but I do think this is an area that we will come back to.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House says that the business she has announced for next week is business as normal, but it certainly is not. Normal business in this Parliament is when Select Committees are able to meet and are able to quiz Ministers, when every second sitting week includes an Opposition day debate on a votable motion, and when there is a Backbench Business debate every sitting week, but she is not allowing any of that. Will not voters start to conclude that this Government are absolutely terrified of the House? Since she has congratulated the new Select Committee Chairs, will she at least guarantee that they can actually chair a Committee because they will be able to sit by next Thursday?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about what are routine measures after a general election to re-establish the Select Committees. If he looks back through history, he will see that we are moving exactly as quickly as any other new Government. We are trying to establish these Committees as quickly as we can. He says we are not discussing anything of any value; I think he must agree that we had the Grenfell Tower debate, and there is the issue of abuse and intimidation of parliamentary candidates, which is damaging—[Interruption.] He is not listening to the answer; he is not interested in the answer. [Interruption.] So, he is saying that discussing abuse and intimidation of candidates, which is clearly putting people off actually standing—[Interruption.] He will appreciate that not nearly enough time and effort has been given to what is a very significant matter. [Interruption.] He waves his hand; people have had death threats and people are being put off from standing for Parliament—[Interruption.] So he does not care about that. Next week on the Order Paper are very important—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. What I said to the House is that through the usual channels I am aware that an Opposition day debate is being offered during that short sitting in September.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you clarify that there is a means by which the Leader of the House can correct the record? She has suggested today that it is utterly normal for us not to have Opposition day debates at this stage, but in fact in 2015, by the summer recess after the general election, we had already had five—

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I absolutely do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is absolutely right that we have transparent discussion in this place, but he will be aware, as he knows quite a lot about energy matters, that about 20% of our electricity is always provided by old nuclear power stations, many of which are to reach the end of their useful life in the next 10 or so years. It will be very important for electricity security that we have in place a new nuclear power station to replace that. Nevertheless, he may well wish to raise that issue in a Westminster Hall debate.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

What the Leader of the House said earlier about private Members’ Bills is great and, as one who has a minor interest in this matter, it would be good to know when we will start debating them. Surely to God, as the Government have nothing in their programme and are allowing themselves two years to do it, should we not have double the number of days allowed for private Members’ Bills in a single session? So, we would like 26, please.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman knows far better than I do about the Standing Orders of this House, so he will be aware that they set out the number of private Members’ Bills. I congratulate him on drawing the No. 1 slot and look forward to working with him on that. As I said in my opening reply to the shadow Leader of the House, this Government have a very full programme not just on Brexit, but on social reform, economic progress and prevention of extremism. There is a lot of work to do. This Government will remain focused on that, but we are absolutely sympathetic to the requests of colleagues for further time to be given for private Members’ Bills.

Justice and Home Affairs Opt-out

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Monday 7th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

That was a good joke at the end.

It seems to me that there are an awful lot of ironies in this debate. The biggest irony of the lot must be that last week the Deputy Prime Minister and the leader of the UK Independence party got themselves all in a lather about the European Union, as apparently the whole country is fixated on this issue, yet the attendance in the Chamber this afternoon is remarkably poor, considering that this is an issue that many have described as vital to British liberties and so on.

The second irony is that even as we are talking about democratic accountability, as the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) just did, the Government have tabled a motion on the Order Paper which will mean that Mr Speaker cannot call an amendment to the Queen’s Speech. The hon. Lady may want to sign an amendment to that motion later today—[Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), if he has not signed it yet—[Interruption.] He has signed it.

It is an irony, is it not, Madam Deputy Speaker—I do not expect you to answer this rhetorical question—that these two things are being debated at the same time? We are condemning Europe for not being an elected organisation and for the democratic unaccountability of the Commission and all the rest of it, even though we have Members of the House of Lords who have never put themselves up for election—except when they were Members of the House of Commons, before they went down there to take the Whip. We condemn the European Union for its lack of democratic accountability, and then the processes we use in this place to debate precisely what we should do about opting in or out of the justice and home affairs segments are put forward in a way that is wholly undemocratic and are used as a means of the Government trying to mask the fact that they cannot unite those on their Benches.

There is a third great irony that I have really loved. It is fascinating to watch so many Conservative Members of Parliament holding their noses throughout their speeches on the European Union. There is a permanent state of holding one’s nose exercised by Conservative MPs around the country. I was in High Wycombe last week, and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) held his nose magnificently throughout all the discussions of the policy on the EU. The first question was about whether there was any real chance of renegotiating the treaties with the EU, and he started off by saying, broadly speaking, “Well…um…it is…um…I support the Government’s policy—until such time as I shan’t.” As I understand it, that is basically the speech made by all the Conservatives who have spoken thus far, apart from the hon. Member for Bury North, who did not go that far. He is not even holding his nose; he is just announcing that there is a smell out there and that he does not support the direction the Government are going in.

I do not start from an ideological position on all this. It seems to me that there is a pragmatic question about whether it is in the interests of pursuing justice for the people of our country that we should associate and co-operate and to what degree we should do so with other countries in the European Union. That pragmatism must be informed by the fact that it is now far easier for people to travel abroad within the European Union. One in four Brits goes to Spain every year and one in six goes to Greece every year. The number of British people who come into contact with the criminal justice system of other countries within the European Union has therefore dramatically increased.

One statistic that is not often mentioned by Mr Farage is that the country with the largest number of its citizens living elsewhere within the European Union is not Poland, Germany or France, but the United Kingdom. Anything we can do to ensure that justice is available in other EU countries and that justice is secured for people in this country must be to their benefit.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman must accept that that argument does not stack up. Let us look at the number of people who travel to the United States or Mexico every year. Is he seriously suggesting that there ought to be some common justice system among those states as well? He is arguing from a weak position.

[Chris Bryant]

No, I am not. The hon. Lady complained that the Government and Members of the House of Lords advanced their argument on the European arrest warrant only because it was more convenient and practical. I am trying to suggest that convenience and practicality are three quarters of the point. In the end, it is in the interests of British people.

I shall take the American point as an example. When the new extradition treaty was agreed between the UK and the United States of America, despite the fact that the American Government—the President—had negotiated the treaty, it was a significant problem that the legislature had to put it in place. We moved much more quickly in this country to ratify the treaty than the Americans, and there was a period when the provisions were not perfectly equal between the two countries and when people such as the hon. Lady who argued that there was an imbalance were right. That is no longer the case, because both countries have implemented the measure.

My point to the hon. Lady is that long before we had the European arrest warrant, a Conservative Government under Mrs Thatcher were painfully aware of the problems of not having a proper extradition system across the whole European Union, where most British people do most of their travelling. That is why we had Ronnie Biggs and many others stuck on the costa del crime in Spain. Franco would not extradite anyone.

[Chris Bryant]

I shall give way to the 16th century in a moment.

I wholly support the European arrest warrant on the same basis that Mrs Thatcher supported the European convention on extradition.

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I cannot give way to the hon. Lady because I have to give way to the 16th century.

[Chris Bryant]

I realised that there might be some clever soul in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but there were plenty of other British fugitives from justice who only had to go abroad to evade justice in this country, and we needed a better system of extradition to be able to get British nationals back to the UK to face justice and, for that matter, to do something similar for nationals of other countries.

I would say to Members who regularly say that this is about protecting British people from poor judicial systems in other European countries that, in the main, we bring non-UK citizens back to the UK to make sure that there is justice for families who have lost a loved one or who face some form of injustice. I wholly disagree with the ideological position adopted by some Government Members, because it is pragmatic to have a single system that works across the whole of the EU. I also think that it is a triumph that, despite the fact that the Napoleonic code and English common law are completely different systems, we can work, broadly speaking, in a united way.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My point was not that we should not be party to the European arrest warrant; nor was it about the convenience of being in or out of it. It was about the method by which we are party to it. In other words, do we do it via a bilateral treaty which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, we have with the United States, or should we opt in to justice and home affairs, which come under the jurisdiction of the European Court and can be changed under qualified majority voting without any say-so from the House?

[Chris Bryant]

I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes, but the problem for her argument is that that option is not available. For that matter, why would we want to say that members of the European Union, which includes two members of the Commonwealth, can all sit around a table and discuss the European arrest warrant, but we will only be able to sign up to it on a bilateral basis? That makes no sense and it is not a system that other members of the European Union will sign up to.

There is a further point, which is my concern about the process that the Government have adopted: we may get to December and not have any new agreed system in place. I know many members of the European Commission want a new system. Some countries in Europe are so profoundly irritated by the way the United Kingdom has been playing its hand over the past few years and are so concerned about the long-term direction of Conservative members of the Government in particular that they would quite like to punish Britain. I fear that we will not have the opt-ins in place by the time the opt-outs have come into force, and as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said, we may well have a substantial period when there is nothing in place. That could raise very significant legal issues about how we would subsequently resolve that, and it would also put us in the difficult and embarrassing position of having to say to our citizens, “We’re sorry. We are not able to extradite back to this country because we opted out and we have not managed to get the opt-in back in place.”

Multiannual Financial Framework

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

As you know, Mr Speaker, I love apologising to Government Members, and I apologise to the Minister. The point I am making is a serious one, however. He referred to some of the small-ticket items in the EU budget, but the big-ticket item is the common agricultural policy. If we do not address that issue in this next round, we will manifestly have failed to deal with the gaping moral and ethical hole at the centre of the European Union.

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady praises me far too much. I was Minister for Europe for about 2.5 seconds. In those 2.5 seconds, however, the one thing that I argued aggressively with my socialist friends and with my European People’s party friends—with whom her party used to be friends—was that the next multiannual round had to be lower than before and should not have an inflationary increase. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is pitching at the wrong person in this particular round.

I believe that there is a role for the EU budget and it should relate to growth, research and development. There are some things where we can do more together as a continent and add value. Unfortunately, however, those are not the issues that grab the attention of the French, the Germans, the Italians and the Spaniards. That is why we have to, and have always had to, build alliances with other countries, particularly the smaller countries.

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I saw the hon. Lady attempting to intervene earlier. I will give way to her, but then no more.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, then, that in order to be able to negotiate successfully on the big-ticket items as he says, we need a sound basis on which to go forward? Supporting an amendment that would simply trash all negotiations with other EU members, such as calling for a cut that is nigh on impossible, would not be the way to progress any decent negotiation on structural reform in the future.

[Chris Bryant]

To be honest, I do not agree with the hon. Lady. If I take her back to the last debate I had with her on this issue, I do not think that that is the position she was advocating then. In her heart of hearts, she would prefer Parliament to give a strong single voice today, so that the Government have a negotiating position whereby they can go to Brussels, Strasbourg or wherever and say, “Look, we have the whole of Parliament behind us saying, ‘We’ve got to cut’.” That is why I hope she will vote for the amendment today.

I know that some hon. Members do not like structural funds at all—perhaps this was the issue that the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who has already left the Chamber, wanted to raise—but I believe structural funds have a role to play in trying to make the whole European Union far more competitive in the world economy. That is certainly true for places like the valleys in south Wales. Sometimes the money is not particularly well spent, but if we did not have structural funds and cohesion funds, the danger is that each individual country would end up abusing state aid to protect specific businesses in their own country, thereby undermining countries like our own that choose not to go down that route.

I ask Government Members this: how could we possibly go back to our constituents and say to teachers, fire officers, police officers and all the rest, “We want to give more money to the European Union, but you’ve got to live with a pay freeze, and you’ve got to live with less money, with 19% cuts year on year to local authority funding for the building of hospitals, homes and so forth.”? I just do not see how I could possibly argue that.

EU-UK Relationship (Reform)

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Andrea Leadsom]

That is absolutely not my understanding, but that is not a discussion for now, so we will have to park that.

The Green Paper was published in June and the Fresh Start project is now moving to phase 2, which is to suggest a manifesto for change by Christmas. I am delighted that 10 Conservative colleagues have each agreed to chair a policy area in which they have a particular expertise, and they will look to get buy-in from other colleagues to achieve a consensus on what specific reforms we will recommend that the Government pursue. By Christmas, we will end up with a specific manifesto for reform, which will be a shopping list of things that Britain would like to see changed.

One of the Government’s biggest challenges is the fact that FCO officials wring their hands when we talk about a shopping list of reform proposals.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

No they do not.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Yes they do. I have had several conversations with FCO officials who say that people can negotiate on only one or two points at a time. That is the way in which EU Commissioners and European parliamentarians squash the genuine national interests of one member state. They say, “You can talk only about the rebate, or only about 0% increase in the budget. You cannot talk about all the other issues that you want to include in your shopping list.” That will be the biggest challenge to any reform.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I had not intended to speak in this debate, but the previous—[Interruption.] I am grateful for all the waves from Government Members. The contribution of the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) has prompted me to speak, however.

First, I want to talk about what my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) referred to as the constitutional shenanigans. For many centuries, it has been a convention in this House that only a Minister of the Crown can lay a charge or an amendment to a Finance Bill that increases or changes a charge and thereby adds a duty to the people of this country, but that is a mistake. The myth that we have a Budget needs to be exploded, too. We do not have a Budget. What we have is a speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, followed by a Finance Bill and some Ways and Means resolutions. In addition, we have a separate process whereby Supply is granted. That system does not result in our properly evaluating whether we are raising money properly and fairly and whether we are spending it properly. I know many of these processes have existed for a very long time, but they lead to profound confusion in most ordinary voters’ minds about how we in this House conduct our business.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore join Members on my side of the House in applauding the Government for establishing the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is conducting independent forecasting and analysis of the Budget, and for putting far more information than before in the Red Book about the distributional impact of tax changes on the people of this country?

[Chris Bryant]

Broadly speaking, yes, I do, just as I supported making the Bank of England independent at a time when the Conservative party was opposed to doing so. However, my point remains that this House does not really vote properly through the expenditure of the Government; we do not, in any sense, analyse it line by line. We also do not match expenditure with the raising of taxes, unlike nearly every other legislature in the world. Most countries that have based their system on ours have now amended their processes and have better processes than we do for budgetary matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to give way to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) again—[Interruption.] No, he gestures that his intervention would be short but the last one went on for ever, so I am going to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) instead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field]

rose—

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman cannot have another go, but the hon. Lady can.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I want to draw his attention and that of the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) to a point about ethics. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government intend to increase the tax take from the wealthiest in this country? Where ethics are concerned, it is appalling that people have deliberately used a company to buy a multi-million pound house simply to avoid paying stamp duty. Does he accept that taking measures to ensure that people pay what is a reasonable and acceptable level of tax is a better method than trying to enforce something that is very easily avoidable for many people?

[Chris Bryant]

Well, I am really impressed by the hon. Lady. I can understand how my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South read my notes but not how the hon. Lady managed to read them from over there. I was going to come to exactly the point she makes but not quite in the same way. Yes, there is an ethical clash about whether this is the right time to introduce this measure for political and economic reasons, but my concern is that because the Chancellor had, I think, personally decided that he was going to cut the 50p rate to 45p, so many other elements of the Budget had to follow that change. A prime example is the fact that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor wanted to be able to say that the rich would pay five times more tax after the Budget than before—I think that is, broadly speaking, the point that the hon. Lady is making. I am not opposed to some of the measures that will increase the amount of tax paid by people who have wealth in a variety of circumstances, but I think that some of the measures in the Budget and the Finance Bill ended up there only to try to shore up that argument, and I do not think that due diligence was done around them.

Let me take one example—I note the look in your eye, Mr Hoyle, and I shall bring my remarks to a close very soon. I think that the measure about capping the tax relief available for people giving money to charities is in the Budget solely so that the Government can argue that the rich will pay more. It is not based on fact or research. There might be perfectly good things we could do on whether charities outside this country that are not covered by the Charity Commission should be removed from the system or on whether greater powers should be given to the commission, but I think that the only reason that the measure was in the Budget was so that the Government could say that tax has increased. This has left the Chancellor and the Prime Minister somewhat double-faced—I shall not say two-faced, because obviously I could not. On the one hand they are saying that the top rate of tax should go down and the rich should not pay so much and, on the other, they are saying that the rich should pay more.

I hope that I have persuaded all the hon. Members on the Government side to change their mind. I see that I have persuaded the reckless Member over there, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), to support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd.

Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Friday 11th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

There are money Bills attached to many pieces of legislation. There will be money Bills in relation to the education Bill and the national health service Bill, for instance. However, I think that the hon. Lady is referring to Finance Bills. It is true that the vast majority of Finance Bills have implications throughout the United Kingdom, although obviously there will be modifications in relation to Scotland if the Scotland Bill is passed. Elements of a future Finance Bill would not apply in Scotland. Indeed, elements of a Finance Bill today already do not apply in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales.

My second point is that it is phenomenally difficult to be clear about what constitutes the territorial extent not just of a particular piece of legislation, but of its transition through the House. It would seem on the face of it that, for instance, the Bill that became the Health Act 2006 was purely an England Bill. Most people would consider that to be the case. The Bill made provision in relation to smoke-free premises, the purpose being to ban smoking in public places in England. On 14 February 2006 the House debated new clause 5, which replaced the original clause 3. It provided that

“The appropriate national authority may make regulations providing for specified descriptions of premises, or specified areas within specified descriptions of premises, not to be smoke-free”.

It then listed a series of places that might be exempted. Subsection (5), for example, stated:

“If both a club premises certificate and a premises licence authorising the consumption of alcohol on the premises have effect in respect of any premises, those premises are to be treated for the purposes of this section as if only the premises licence had effect”.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will, but I shall want to return to my specific argument.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Given that the whole purpose of the Bill is to make clearer in legislation exactly what different legislative proposals relate to in terms of the geographical area of the United Kingdom, surely his argument is one in favour of the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

No, it is an argument against it. I remember clearly the rows that took place in both the Chamber and the Clerk’s Office about whether the way in which the amendments to a health Bill were being selected would mean that Wales was or was not covered. Because most Members wanted to remove the provision that would allow the Secretary of State to exempt private members’ clubs in England, they actually removed the provision that allowed an exemption for private members’ clubs in Wales. It may well be that the Welsh Assembly would have wanted to do that itself anyway, but it had no choice. It could not make such a provision. I can tell the hon. Lady that that row was quite vociferous.

My point is this: I do not think it is possible to be clear. The original legislation might be clear, but people might want to amend it, and why should they not be able to do so? If the parliamentary draftspeople say, “This Bill will cover only England”, the number of Bills going through the House will have to be doubled, if not trebled, because there will have to be a separate Wales Bill and a separate Scotland Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

No, I honestly think that the hon. Lady is completely naive in relation to this matter. She said at the beginning of her speech that she thought that it was a fundamental principle that MPs should be able to vote only on those things that affect their constituents. That is the only purpose of having such a provision in any legislation. If she introduces a piece of legislation or a Standing Order—I will come to parliamentary privilege in a moment—that would require MPs not to vote on a piece of legislation, or that would shame people into not voting on a piece of legislation, she will create a real problem. If we assert that only English MPs can take part in the proceedings on English legislation, table amendments, amend Bills, seek to speak and vote on that legislation—that is where her Bill is driving us—there will be a problem for English legislation, not least because large numbers of Scottish and Welsh MPs have been English Ministers dealing with largely English matters. There are and have been Scottish and Welsh Ministers in, for example, the Department of Health and the Department for Education who have largely dealt with matters that refer only to England.

[Andrea Leadsom]

People in the country do not want to see Scottish MPs voting as Ministers on English-only legislation. Surely the hon. Gentleman can see that there is a fairness issue. It is surely not a bad thing if people might be shamed into feeling that they cannot represent English-only issues if they are a Scottish MP, and by the way, the Bill is not proposing that.

[Chris Bryant]

I think that the hon. Lady has just let the cat out of the bag. That is the whole point of her argument, is it not? There is no other reason to introduce such as measure. The only reason is to shame people. That is what the hon. Lady wants to do. I think that she is effectively saying that she does not want me as a Welsh MP to vote on anything that she believes to be an English-only matter. Is that what she believes?

[Andrea Leadsom]

Is the hon. Gentleman asking me or my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin)?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Sorry, I am slightly cross-eyed. I meant the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom).

[Andrea Leadsom]

This is obviously my hon. Friend’s Bill. She is not proposing any such legislation. She is merely proposing to clarify the territorial extent of any Bill that goes through the House. For my own part, in direct answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, I think that it is unfair to you, as a Welsh Member representing Welsh interests, voting on English-only interests, or indeed being a Minister for English-only interests. That is my personal opinion and I would not like you to attribute that to my hon. Friend whose Bill this is. She is not making that proposal.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently point out that I have been accused of many things but not of being a Welsh Member?

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Andrea Leadsom

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Those were the days, eh? When high-mindedness ruled.

The point is surely that it should not be within the power of the Government to determine the rules. It is like the situation in which everybody is running a 100 metre race, but the starting gun is held by the person in charge, and sometimes he decides to shoot some of the runners instead of just starting the race.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I agree that constituents reach the point at which they feel that the Government need to change, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is often in part because constituents are desperate for the Prime Minister of the day to announce a general election? Having such certainty to a reasonable extent will therefore obviate the need for constituents to wonder, “When is the election going to happen? When is the date? It can’t happen soon enough.” That certainty will surely improve the situation.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, of course. The hon. Lady is right in the sense that constituents will not have to worry about the date of the election. In fact, newspapers and the BBC will have to employ considerably fewer journalists, because they will know the date of the general election and actually have to obsess about something else. However, the past 50 years have shown that, for the most part, once a Parliament has run for more than four years, either the Parliament itself is so fed up with the Prime Minister that it chooses to change the Prime Minister before holding a subsequent general election, or the country is becoming pretty fed up.