Deregulation Bill
Debate between Chris Bryant and Baroness Primarolo(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
In referring to all those Members, the hon. Gentleman might also point out their slightly wider career paths. For example, Lord Grade was head of ITV and spent most of his career in broadcasting in the commercial sector, so it is fascinating that the commercial sector and the public sector agree.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I do not think it is fascinating; we are not here to debate Members of the other place. We are here to debate the Lords amendments so, Mr Bridgen, I require you to desist from reminding us what happened in the other place, because we can read it, and to direct your comments to the amendments before us.
Immigration Bill
Debate between Chris Bryant and Baroness Primarolo(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As far as I can see, there are no copies of the manuscript amendments on the Table. It seems bizarre, on the matter of whether people should be deprived of their citizenship—[Interruption.] The Minister for Immigration can keep quiet for a moment. The reason we need manuscript amendments is that the Government tabled their new clause only at the very last minute to try to shove other measures off the agenda. Can we ensure that the manuscript amendments are available to everyone so that we know what we are debating?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I understand that copies of the manuscript amendments are available in the Vote Office—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I have not finished my sentence yet. It would be helpful if that could be checked, although I am assured that they are available, and if copies could be made available in the Chamber for Members who feel unable to get to the Vote Office because they wish to hear the debate.
Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]
Debate between Chris Bryant and Baroness Primarolo(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is expecting to speak for a second time in this debate, but he is not prepared to give way during his speech now. Can you confirm that it is a matter of discretion for the whole House as to whether somebody is allowed to speak for a second time in a debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
If a Minister seeks to speak for a second time, it is with the leave of the House. As the hon. Gentleman knows, whether any Members, including Ministers, decide to give way to an intervention is entirely a matter for them and not for the Chair.
2014 JHA Opt-out Decision
Debate between Chris Bryant and Baroness Primarolo(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker
Sir Alan, you were just fractionally ahead of me. I seem to recollect that Mr Speaker said that the amendments would be formally moved at the end of the debate. Perhaps this is an indication that we should have the Government opening and closing a debate before we actually have that debate, so that we know where we stand. Mr Bryant, thank you very much for your point of order—
Madam Deputy Speaker
For a change, but perhaps we could return to Bill Cash.
Points of Order
Debate between Chris Bryant and Baroness Primarolo(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker
I must be frank with the hon. Gentleman on this matter. Rather than giving him a direct response today, I will take the matter to Mr Speaker so that he can reflect on it and decide whether there is a need for further action.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will know that, before the general election, the Prime Minister promised that his Government would cut net migration to the tens of thousands. He used the phrase, “No ifs. No buts”. The former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), said to the House on 9 July:
“A student who comes here for three years or more is as much of an immigrant as somebody who comes on a work visa for two years or more.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 4.]
Today, the Minister for Universities and Science has announced—not here in the House, but at a conference in Keele—that the Government have told the Office for National Statistics to
“better count students in immigration flows”.
That is clearly the first step towards statistically removing students from the Government’s net migration target. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not expect you to comment on the chaos at the heart of the Government, or indeed on the fact that the new Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has already lost control of his own brief and policy, given that such announcements are being made by the Universities Minister. Can you confirm, however, that all announcements of that nature should be made to this House, so that Members on both sides of the House can criticise the Government if we think that they are doing something wrong? Can you also confirm that an urgent question, if sought, could be taken either tomorrow or on Monday?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has put a great deal on the record that was not strictly a point of order. With regard to Ministers making new policy announcements, Mr Speaker has made it absolutely clear that when such announcements are to be made, it is the House of Commons that should hear them first. With regard to what the Government might decide to do in the next few days in relation to the business of the House, I am afraid that I am not able to comment, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will pursue the matter anyway.
Bill presented
Public Service Pensions Bill
Presented and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Secretary Theresa May, Secretary Philip Hammond, Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Eric Pickles, Danny Alexander, Mr Francis Maude, Sajid Javid and Steve Webb, presented a Bill to make provision for public service pension schemes; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 70) with explanatory notes (Bill 70-EN).
Points of Order
Debate between Chris Bryant and Baroness Primarolo
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that information on the record. He has been quite ingenious in using a point of order to do so. I am sure that the House is grateful for that correction.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will know that when there is an equality of voices in this House, that is the only time when the Chair of a Committee or the Speaker is able to vote. In the other House, it is quite the reverse: the Speaker or the Chairperson of a Committee is able to vote twice, both in their own right and then if there is an equality of votes. If the new Committee that is to be set up is set up as a Joint Committee, traditionally that has meant that the rules of the House of Lords apply rather than those of the House of Commons. That would mean that the Chairman of the Committee, who is a Member of this House, would have two votes. Is that correct?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am advised that the hon. Gentleman is correct in his analysis of the rules with regard to the requirements on voting and whether a situation would apply in the circumstances that he has described. I am grateful for his point of order. Perhaps I could ask him to leave it with me at this point so that I can take further advice from the Government and the Clerks as to whether that is the true intention of the Government.
Finance Bill (Ways and Means)
Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made in the Finance Bill about face-value vouchers.—(Mr Gauke.)
Finance Bill (Ways and Means) (No. 2)
Resolved,
That provision may be made in the Finance Bill amending the descriptions of supplies which are zero-rated, exempt or subject to a reduced rate of value added tax.—(Mr Gauke.)
Finance Bill (Ways and Means) (No. 3)
Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made in the Finance Bill about the treatment of arrangements involving settled property.—(Mr Gauke.)
Point of Order
Debate between Chris Bryant and Baroness Primarolo(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This relates to what we have just been discussing, so I am sorry that the Minister has already fled the Chamber. A written ministerial statement relating to the commission on the West Lothian question was tabled this morning. It states that the Government will
“consult with Mr Speaker and other Parliamentary authorities”
on how the commission can be created and how it will consider matters relating to how Parliament should address the West Lothian question. We note that that puts any onus to consult other political parties on the Speaker. I hope that you will take back to Mr Speaker the Opposition’s hope that all political parties in the House will be consulted before terms of reference are brought forward and the membership of the commission is agreed. I raise this as a point of order only because the Government have decided to put the matter of consultation in the hands of Mr Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, strictly speaking that is not a point of order for business today, but he has made his point on the written ministerial statement, and I am absolutely confident that Mr Speaker will have considered all the necessary matters that will involve him. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that Mr Speaker will discharge his duties accordingly.
Mobile Communications (Interception)
Debate between Chris Bryant and Baroness Primarolo(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I believe that, in accordance with Parliament-speak, this Adjournment debate has been entitled something like “The Interception of Mobile Telephony”, but in case anybody is in any doubt, it is about phone hacking. [Interruption.] That term covers a multitude of sins: tapping a telephone call or line; hacking into a phone’s operating system to access e-mails, text messages, contact details or— [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. The Adjournment debate is now taking place. If Members wish to have private conversations, they can do so in the Lobby. I would be very grateful if they would not do so in the Chamber.
Chris Bryant
You are very naughty boys.
As I was saying, the term phone hacking includes hacking into a phone’s operating system to access e-mails, text messages, contact details or a record of mobile internet searches, and the interception of mobile phone messages either before or after the person for whom they were intended has accessed them. These are not just sins, of course; they are offences under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
There are other dark arts: ringing an office and pretending to have to deliver a parcel to someone’s home address and thereby fraudulently getting the home address; ringing a phone call centre and pretending to be a client so as to get a personal identification number to be able later to listen to, or change, somebody’s messages; and blagging a doctor’s receptionist into giving highly personal information about an appointment or medication or other treatment. Interestingly, one expert concluded only two days ago that roughly 60% of doctors’ surgeries in England are completely incapable of protecting patients’ privacy in this kind of situation.
All those dark arts were part of the systematic modus operandi of the News of the World for a sustained period. Evidence already in the public domain shows that that period extended at least from 2003 to 2006, when Andy Coulson was the editor of the newspaper. Recent evidence also suggests that it continued long after Coulson had left, and that between June 2009 and March 2010 a News of the World journalist called Dan Evans was accessing or attempting to access the phone messages of Kelly Hoppen. I believe that the practice started earlier than 2003; I believe it started in 2002, under the editorship of the then Rebekah Wade, now Rebekah Brooks, and I believe that evidence will very soon prove that to be the case. I find it absolutely extraordinary that Rebekah Brooks has, thus far, refused point blank to appear before the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. I very much hope that in future deliberations that Committee will insist, if necessary by a motion of this House, that she be forced to appear before it.
This activity was not confined to the News of the World alone. I understand that there is now clear evidence that at least one journalist at The Sunday Times was also involved. For a long time, though, News International tried to maintain that just one rogue reporter at the News of the World was involved: Clive Goodman, the royal correspondent. News International could not explain why a royal correspondent would have been interested in the messages of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) or Sienna Miller, as they are not notable members of the royal family, but it was assisted in its argument by the Metropolitan police. Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, who was formerly in charge of the investigation, said that there were “perhaps a handful” of hacking victims, and his successor, John Yates, maintained time and again that there were very few victims. Indeed, as late as late last year several possible victims were told directly by the Metropolitan police that there was “little or no” evidence of hacking in their case.
Of course we now know that to be completely and utterly untrue. Indeed, the head of the new investigation, appointed this January, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers, has said explicitly that
“this has now proved to be false, and represents an important and immediate new line of inquiry.”
The allegation that there were only “perhaps a handful” of hacking victims is countered by the fact that I could name—I am not going to do so today—at least eight Members of the House of Commons who have been informed directly by the Metropolitan police that not only were they a person of interest to Mr Mulcaire, but there may have been interception of their messages.
There are very serious issues here. On the face of it, at least, the relationship between the Metropolitan police and the News of the World is remarkably and, I would argue, dangerously close. The former editor of The Sun and the News of the World, Rebekah Brooks, has openly confessed that she has paid police officers for information—in other words, bribed the police—and there has been no investigation whatever. Andy Hayman, who once led the News of the World investigation at the Metropolitan police, has ended up on the News International payroll. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner and other senior Met officers dined with senior executives at the News of the World both while the investigation was ongoing and when there were calls that the investigation be reopened. Indeed, Sir Paul Stephenson met Neil Wallis of the News of the World in September 2006, only a month after counter-terrorism officers arrested Mulcaire and Goodman. There were 12 other private dinners and social engagements, including an invitation for Sir Paul to attend the News Corporation summer party. And in 2009, Deputy Commissioner John Yates had dinner with the editor of the News of the World, Colin Myler, just when he was refusing calls for the investigation to be reopened. That was at best ill-advised; at worst, fairly or unfairly, it smacks of collusion.
One day there will have to be a full investigation into why the Met’s original investigation was so cursory. Was it laziness that meant people simply could not be bothered to wade through the material gathered from Glenn Mulcaire in 2006? Was it because of the closeness of senior officers to the newspaper? Was it just too ready an acceptance of News International’s word, or did the News of the World have something on some of the people involved in the investigation? Or was it a mistaken understanding of the law, deliberate or accidental?
That takes me to the evidence that John Yates gave to the Select Committee on Home Affairs in September 2010, in which he said that
“hacking is defined in a very prescriptive way by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and it’s very, very prescriptive and it’s very difficult to prove…There are very few offences that we are able to actually prove that have been hacked. That is, intercepting the voicemail prior to the owner of that voicemail intercepting it him or herself.”
That point at the end is very important:
“intercepting the voicemail prior to the owner of that voicemail intercepting it him or herself.”
On that basis—and only on that basis—Yates asserted that there were really only eight to 12 victims.
It has now emerged, however, that never at any stage during the prosecution of Goodman and Mulcaire did anybody from the Crown Prosecution Service advise the Metropolitan police that the law should be interpreted in such a way, and never at any stage in the prosecution was that interpretation relied on. Indeed, the Director of Public Prosecutions said in his evidence:
“First, the prosecution did not in its charges or presentation of the facts attach any legal significance to the distinction between messages which had been listened to and messages which had not. Secondly, the prosecution not having made the distinction, the defence did not raise any legal arguments in respect of the issue, and pleaded guilty.”
Furthermore, I understand that on 1 October last year a team from the CPS held a meeting with a team from the Metropolitan police and formally warned them it was wrong to claim such an interpretation. Scotland Yard, therefore, has known for more than five months that the evidence given by Yates to the two Select Committees was misleading—not on a minor point, but on the most substantial point of all, as it is directly linked to the question of how many victims there are in the affair and whether there should or should not be a further investigation or a reopening of the investigation. Indeed, that was the very reason—and the only reason—why the Metropolitan police refused point blank to reopen the case until January of this year.
Let me be clear. I am delighted that the Met has reopened the investigation. I am glad that additional information has now been gathered from other sources, but what still astounds and infuriates me is that in many cases the Met already had all the information it needed—reams and reams of notes taken by Mr Mulcaire with 91 personal identification numbers, copious invoices, pages devoted to individual targets with thousands of linked phone numbers, many of them garnered illicitly, and quite often the name of a commissioning journalist or executive. Indeed, some of us have been shown the material that was gathered from Mr Mulcaire in 2006, which has been sitting in the Metropolitan police’s vaults ever since, that relates directly to us.
In other words, the Met had many of the dots—it just failed or refused to join them up. Let us take one example. On 2 September 2009, Mike Hall, former MP for Weaver Vale, directly asked Mr Yates,
“was John Prescott’s phone actually tapped or not?”
Yates answered:
“No. As I said on the day, there is no evidence it was.’
Yates also told the Home Affairs Committee on 7 September 2010—just a few months ago—that Lord Prescott
“has never been hacked to my knowledge and there is no evidence that he has.”
Yet now Lord Prescott has been told that that evidence exists and always has existed. We now know that the evidence given to the Committee was completely disingenuous.
Yates misled the Committee, whether deliberately or inadvertently. He used an argument that had never been relied on by the CPS or by his own officers so as to suggest that the number of victims was minuscule, whereas in fact we know and he knew that the number of potential victims is and was substantial. What was lacking was not possible avenues of investigation, but the will to pursue them.
What is depressing is how closely all that accords with the line spun by News International. When the Chairman of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport Committee asked Les Hinton:
“You carried out a full, rigorous internal inquiry, and you are absolutely convinced that Clive Goodman was the only person who knew what was going on?”,
Les Hinton replied:
“Yes, we have and I believe he was the only person”.
There simply has not been a full or rigorous investigation. I do not know why, although I could speculate, but I hope that one day we shall all know.
There is also the matter of the mobile phone companies, each of which has operated a slightly different system regarding mobile phone messages. There is clear evidence that in some cases rogue staff members sold information to investigators and reporters. In other cases, companies spotted that a client’s phone had been compromised but failed to notify the client. Indeed, one Select Committee report noted that Vodafone sometimes notified people, O2 mostly notified people but Orange never did. When I asked Orange yesterday whether it would notify a client if their phone was hacked into now, it said it did not know. However, I understand that today it believes that in certain circumstances it might notify a client. I believe that in every such circumstance the client should be notified when there has been a problem. All that suggests a rather slapdash approach towards the security of mobile telephony.
This has been a many layered scandal, but at the heart of the issue is the rationale behind the whole modus operandi at the News of the World and other newspapers. As one police officer put it to me, the newspapers involved deliberately sought to harass, intimidate and bully people for their own commercial interests. In the pursuit of their victims they were reckless about the innocent bystanders whose personal messages were intercepted, transcribed and relayed to others.
Almost as bad as the original illegal activity—only the tip of which we have yet seen—has been the cover-up. Other Members and former Members of the House have said they were warned off pushing the issue in the House and in Select Committees. When I raised the question of parliamentary privilege in the House last September, my friends were told by a senior figure allied to Rupert Murdoch and a former executive of News International to warn me that it would not be forgotten. What is truly shameful is the fact that the full extent of all this is coming to light now only because individuals have taken private civil actions, often at great expense, against the News of the World, News International or the Metropolitan police.
I praise the investigation that has now begun and I trust that the deputy assistant commissioner will follow where the evidence leads. I only wish that her predecessor had done the same. I suspect that even hardened cynics will be shocked when they know the full extent of the operation that went on, but I praise those who have taken courageous action in the courts, especially Sienna Miller and Kelly Hoppen.
There are many unanswered questions. Why was it left to the News of the World to do its own internal investigation and, in particular, why did the News of the World rather than the Metropolitan police impound Ian Edmondson’s computer? How did e-mails relating to Ian Edmondson that were not available a year ago suddenly become available once he was implicated in Mulcaire’s papers relating to Siena Miller, which the Met had had in its possession for at least four years? Why were key figures at the News of the World, including Neville Thurlbeck, not interviewed by the police? Why did the Met choose a narrow, false interpretation of the law on interception? How many journalists commissioned Glenn Mulcaire’s illegal activity? How many senior executives at News International were aware of what was going on on their watch? Were Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson, Les Hinton and Neil Wallis aware? For four years now, the argument from the Met and the News of the World has been consistent: there was just one rogue reporter, there were very few victims, it is very difficult to prove anything and every avenue of investigation was pursued. Every shred of that argument is now in tatters.
I fully understand that there will be people who think none of this matters, and that it is just a storm in a metropolitan teacup, but the freedom of the press is far too important and was won too hard to be sullied by such illegal activity. Investigative journalism is so important in uncovering malfeasance that it is vital readers know that the stories they read are properly, reliably and legally sourced.
In the end this is about who runs Britain. Are the press above the law or subject to it? Is the law there to protect the press or to pursue every avenue of investigation? In time, I suspect we shall see that this has been a full-blown, copper-bottomed scandal.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Debate between Chris Bryant and Baroness Primarolo(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, not a speech, and I think that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has got the gist of the point.
The Second Deputy Chairman
I do not need to be picked up on that. I am not commenting at all on whether interventions are good or not; I simply point out that the convention of the House is that they should be relatively brief. That is all.
The Second Deputy Chairman
Frankly, that is not a point of order. The programme motion has been agreed by the House and Members are proceeding through the Bill, discussing what they consider to be important. As long as they remain in order, they can do so. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is grateful for having put his point on the record. Perhaps we can now return to amendment 364.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) made a good point about how seats might be doled out in the different parts of the Union. It is interesting to analyse what might happen to Sheffield: it would be quite difficult to construct a Liberal Democrat seat for Sheffield, Hallam that would survive—so there is a silver lining somewhere in the legislation.
Some communities will end up without their own representation if we cut the number of seats from 650 to 600 and insist on mathematical perfection. That is a problem.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Debate between Chris Bryant and Baroness Primarolo(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. I hope that in replying, the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted into a general discussion about AV.
Chris Bryant
I would like to ask you, Ms Primarolo, whether you view this as constituting a stand part debate as well.
The Second Deputy Chairman
I do not consider this to be a stand part debate because the amendment is very narrow. Members should be aware of that: if they push the margins too widely, it will lead to sacrificing debate later.
Chris Bryant
Fine. I just wanted to give notice that we would like a stand part debate when the debate on this amendment has concluded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) is wrong. In theory, it might seem possible to cast seven preferences if there were seven candidates; however, a preference would be expressed only six times, as at the end it is a choice between the sixth and seventh candidates. It is unlikely that that would happen very often in practice.
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that the views of the parliamentary Labour party, vast or otherwise, are not specifically relevant to the amendment. Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) by informing him that he can move on.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Debate between Chris Bryant and Baroness Primarolo(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
I beg to move amendment 354, page 27, line 37, at end insert—
‘(iii) a school which enjoys charitable status.’.
The Second Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 355, page 27, line 38, leave out from ‘Scotland’ to end of line 39 and insert
‘any school other than those which are run as profit-making enterprises’.
Amendment 356, page 27, line 41, after ‘Assembly’, insert
‘or a school which enjoys charitable status’.
Chris Bryant
The amendments are in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Historically, legislation has always provided that the returning officer is able to use polling stations in state-provided schools. For many people up and down the land, when they go to vote, they expect to turn up to a school. Normally it is their local primary school, but provision may be made in their local secondary school. Sometimes, where schools have disappeared, there is a problem with the local returning officer finding a suitable venue. Of course, there is an impact on local state schools: sometimes they have to be closed because there is no other means of providing that the returning officer can use the entrance and make sure that there is security for the children in the school.
These are three simple amendments, the first of which—amendment 354—would insert in schedule 2, page 27, line 37, the words
“a school which enjoys charitable status”,
so that the provisions applied not just to schools provided by the state. We have used that term in relation to the law in England and Wales, because in those areas, independent schools with good facilities that might be made available could be so termed. To provide a similar provision for Scotland, we have tabled amendment 355, which would insert, in schedule 2, page 27, line 38, the phrase
“any school other than those which are run as profit-making enterprises”,
because the independent sector in Scotland works slightly differently.
I see that none of our Northern Irish colleagues is with us, but amendment 356 relates to Northern Ireland. We would not want to conflict with the provisions relating to Roman Catholic schools run by nunneries and convents, so we have not provided the exact same measure as for England and Wales, where “charitable status” covers the situation. We therefore suggest in the amendment that in schedule 2, page 27, line 41, after “Assembly”, we should insert
“or a school which enjoys charitable status”.
I recognise that there are those who would say, “Why on earth should independent sector schools be forced to act as polling stations?” I suspect that more independent schools are likely to say that they would quite like the income that might accrue. More importantly, I do not see why state-provided schools should be regularly used and should therefore undergo the upheaval that polling stations cause, but the independent sector which, in the main, enjoys charitable status and is therefore able to have tax benefits, should not be required to provide the same facilities.
The Minister may say, “We think this is an unnecessary measure.” Our point is that it should be a matter of fairness. The provision should apply across the board. It should not be state schools alone that are inconvenienced. The inconvenience should be shared by all. In addition, some preparatory schools or public schools would be able to provide the necessary facilities relatively easily, without any major inconvenience to them.
In recent years we have seen a considerable attempt by schools in the independent sector to open their doors so that they are far more engaged in the local community. This is an opportunity for them to be engaged in the political process. I hope the amendments will be acceptable to the Government. I am sure they would not want to defend the present injustice.
Emerging Economies
Debate between Chris Bryant and Baroness Primarolo(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
No, we tend to specialise in ears.
The Minister is the first Liberal in the Foreign Office for some 60 years, so I did a little research into previous Liberal Ministers there. Captain Neil Primrose, who was one of the last four, lasted less than five months—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman’s points are very interesting, but he needs to ensure that he stays in order and relates his remarks to the subject of emerging economies.
Chris Bryant
Captain Neil Primrose, who took a strong interest in emerging economies at the time, and particularly Turkey, which we shall come to, unfortunately lasted only five months in government, because the Government collapsed, and his daughter ended up marrying a Tory. Cecil Harmsworth, who also took a strong interest in emerging economies, is someone whose family gave us the Daily Mail—we often forget that it was the Liberals who did that. The Marquis of Reading had to resign for insider dealing after just three months in the job, while John Simon ended up virtually a Tory, so I look forward to observing the Minister’s career.
There can be little doubt that the shape of the world’s economy is changing, as the Minister said, and it is changing at a pace that few would have anticipated just a decade ago. Over the past 10 years, the BRIC countries, as they are often referred to—Brazil, Russia, India and China—have alone contributed more than a third of world GDP growth, growing from one sixth of the world economy to almost a quarter. There is also a growing confidence in many of those countries about their economic and cultural future, and they want a far greater impact on the world stage. Indeed, they are often impatient with progress at the United Nations and elsewhere. Thus, in April, Brazil saw its lowest unemployment figures since 2001, and it confidently expects growth to reach 6% this year, and this from a country that in 2002 had to secure an IMF loan—the largest IMF loan ever at the time—of $30.4 billion. India’s growth rate is expected to be 8.6%, while China has been averaging at 10% not just for the 10 years to which the Minister referred, but for the past 30 years.
Nothing, however, is certain—we only have to look at a little bit of history to see that. In 1913, Argentina was the 10th largest economy in the world and enjoyed significant advantages over many others: great natural resources, a well educated population and strong international ties to the United States of America, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom. Today, however, Argentina languishes. Why? In part, I believe, because of the self-inflicted political turbulence that it has experienced; in part, because of—[Interruption.] I do not think that it was socialism—if anything, it was national socialism, which was rather closer to Tory philosophy in those days. In part, the reason was that Argentina failed to deal with inequality, but it was also—and primarily—an economic nationalism that created unnecessary barriers to trade. I would say to Argentina today that economic nationalism will do it no favours at all in the years to come either.