Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Debate between Chris Bryant and Ed Davey

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I completely respect my hon. Friend. He has made that point several times, not only in the Chamber but also to me privately, and I agree with him: that is the direction of travel we are going in, which is why we agree with the Humble Address presented today. We are not standing in the way, and we will do everything we can to comply with that as fast as we possibly can. I will come on to a couple of caveats a bit later, but I just want to pursue the point about what we knew in the past.

The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) rightly said that Paul Flynn had a debate on 4 May 2011, to which he responded, standing in for the Minister responsible. However, Paul Flynn initiated another debate, on 17 March in Westminster Hall. It was granted to him by the Backbench Business Committee, which had been set up relatively recently. Because he was finding it very difficult to make any of the allegations that he wanted to make because of the rules of the House, he concluded that

“there really is no point in continuing”.—[Official Report, 17 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 156WH.]

The then Deputy Leader of the House, David Heath—who was another Liberal Democrat member of the Government at the time—made the point, which I think has been made by both Mr Bercow and you, Mr Speaker, that if there were a “substantive motion”, such comments could be made. It would be necessary to find a means of tabling such a motion, like the one that we are discussing today.

Following that, Paul Flynn tried to secure a substantive motion, but managed to secure only a motion for an Adjournment debate, on 4 May. He struggled again, and this is what he said:

“The Speaker would quite rightly abide by the rules of the House and tell me that I was not allowed to make any derogatory statements that might affect the envoy, his personality or his name. It is an illustration of how demeaned we are as politicians and Members of Parliament that I am allowed to make any points about the damage that is done only in an oblique way, by discussing the effects of the holder of the office, his role and the comments that are being made.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 647.]

Of course he was angry: he was furious. He wrote a great book about being an MP, which I commend to all hon. Members.

As the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton knows, he responded to that debate. He said:

“I, for one, believe that the Duke of York does an excellent job as the UK’s special representative for international trade and investment. He promotes UK business interests around the world, and helps to attract inward investment.”

He continued at some length, and concluded:

“He has made a valuable contribution in developing significant opportunities for British business through the role, and continues to do so.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 649-650.]

Let me say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that if he had followed the debates in the public domain at the time he would, I think, have known better than to make those comments.

[Ed Davey]

The Minister knows that I apologised for making that comment, having taken a brief from someone else. I really wish that I had not uttered those words, because I am thinking about the victims, and I have praised the Minister for the role that he took. I hope he will acknowledge that two months after that debate Andrew left the role, and it was right that he did. I was not privy to those discussions, but the Government did get rid of him.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, he left his post in, I believe, July 2011. It could not have come soon enough for many of us, and it is a regret to many that the Government were not able to listen faster and act faster at that time.

What this whole sorry saga shows is that deference can be a toxic presence in the body politic. Of course we always seek to respect others, and we look for the best in others. There is another instance in that Adjournment debate that illustrates the generosity that we often show. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), whom I told that I was going to raise this, and who is a gentleman to his fingertips and always a very magnanimous fellow, asked:

“Does the Minister agree that one reason why the Duke of York has considerable credibility is his distinguished record as a former member of the Fleet Air Arm who gave valuable service in the Falklands war? That shows a degree of commitment over and above any inherited responsibilities that he might be considered to have.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 650.]

Of course I understand the point that the right hon. Member was making back then, but the fear is that when deference tips over into subservience it can be terribly dangerous, because the victims are not heard, respected or understood in the same way as those with grand titles, and that—as the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said—has implications for this House. The conduct of business in the House is entirely a matter for you, Mr Speaker, interpreting “Erskine May” and the Standing Orders with the Clerks. I only repeat the words of Paul Flynn in 2011, when he denounced what he called

“censorship on hon. Members discussing an issue of great importance”.—[Official Report, 17 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 156WH.]

I know that you too, Mr Speaker, would want to denounce such censorship.

Let me issue one caveat about the motion. The Government will of course comply with the terms of the Humble Address in full—as I have said, we support the motion—but, as the House will know, there is a live police investigation of the former Duke of York following his arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The House will also be aware that following that arrest on 19 February, Buckingham Palace issued a statement on behalf of the King. His Majesty emphasised that

“the law must take its course”,

and that the Palace would provide its

“full and wholehearted support and co-operation”.

The statement concluded with a commitment that His Majesty and the royal family would continue in their duty and service to the nation, and I am sure the whole House will support that sentiment.

As the police have rightly said, it is absolutely crucial that the integrity of their investigation is protected, and now that these proceedings are under way, it would be wrong for me to say anything that might prejudice them. Nor will the Government be able to put into the public domain anything that is required by the police for them to conduct their inquiries unless and until they are satisfied. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will agree with that point.

Energy Bills

Debate between Chris Bryant and Ed Davey

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I am being tempted by my colleagues on the Back Benches. I hope they can cast their minds back to a former Conservative Government who wanted to put VAT at 17.5% on energy bills while my party campaigned against that. As I want to ensure that our coalition parties are working closely together, I respectfully repeat that that proposal would be against the law.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

All one needs to know about this Government is summed up in the first few words of the Secretary of State’s statement when he said that this Government were taking action “to reduce the impact of Government policies on energy bills.” I want to increase the effect of Government policies on energy bills, because I want a Government who are going to stand up to the energy companies and make sure that we reduce bills. Why will the Government not do that?

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Gentleman shows his lack of understanding of the policy. It is very important that we have Government policies to tackle fuel poverty and boost energy efficiency, and I would have thought he would welcome that. We are combining those policies with our very strong policies on competition. I only wish that when Labour was in government it had pursued competition policies as rigorous as ours.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Ed Davey

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I am always happy to meet hon. Members and I am sure we can arrange that. Ahead of that meeting, however, I want to ensure that the hon. Lady and her constituents who will be accompanying her do not have raised expectations. Royal Mail is struggling with its financial position. We are turning around Royal Mail—it was a disastrous financial case when we had it from Labour—and, as Minister, I would not want to impose extraordinary and disproportionate costs on it. I shall certainly meet the hon. Lady, however.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Labour Government introduced the artists resale right, which has made an enormous difference to many artists in this country. The law requires that it is introduced for the estates of deceased artists from 1 January next year. When I last asked the Secretary of State about it, he said that he could not confirm that it was going ahead and he still looks as bemused as he did then even though it is his responsibility, but the Arts Minister has told me that it will go ahead as long as I do not mention it to anybody else. Will the Secretary of State please now inform us exactly what is happening on the artists resale right?

[Mr Davey]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

The Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Ed Davey

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I am certainly very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue. He is right to bring attention to this very important innovation by the Government to create something called a public data corporation, bringing together a number of key Government assets to ensure that they are managed efficiently and to put a greater amount of data into the public domain.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

One of the Labour Government’s great successes was the introduction of the artist’s resale right. Since then, the art market has quadrupled, and hard-pressed artists have received £13 million. The derogation in awarding the artist’s resale right to the estate of dead artists lapses at the end of the year. Will the Secretary of State confirm that from January next year it will apply to the estate of deceased artists?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Ed Davey

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

This Parliament will have a chance to examine properly the free trade agreement with Peru and Colombia. We expect that member states will need to ratify the agreement formally in 2011, but we will confirm that when the final texts are issued later this year.

[Chris Bryant]

I do not know whether it is because the Minister is a Lib Dem rather than a Conservative, but that is a much better answer than I got to this question on Tuesday from the Minister for Europe. Can he ensure that that happens? There are other countries that would like to slip past the fact that Colombia has a poor human rights record. There are more trade unionists killed in that country than in all the other countries in the world put together, and an enormous problem with displaced people. It is therefore vital that this House gets to choose whether to sign up to that free trade agreement. Will he ensure that every other country signs up to that and, if necessary, use his veto?

[Mr Davey]

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe gave an excellent reply to the hon. Gentleman. In any event, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, because when he was Minister for Europe he negotiated one of the strongest ever human rights clauses in the FTA with Peru and Colombia, and he deserves the credit on behalf of many people in Colombia. He will know that legal advisers are now looking at the draft text and will have to decide whether it is known as a mixed agreement or a union-only agreement. Our belief is that it will be a mixed agreement and therefore that not just the European Parliament but all Parliaments will have to consider it. That will create the debate that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Ed Davey

Thursday 3rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful for that question. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has led the debate on the new proposal. He and other colleagues on the coalition Benches helped to persuade the previous Government to adopt the idea, for which he did so much work. He will be aware that the previous Government undertook a consultation, which ended at the end of April. We are looking at all the submissions to that consultation and we will report back to the House when we have had a chance to analyse them, dealing with the sorts of issues that he has raised.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

T8. Earlier, in response to three identical planted questions about regulation, the Minister gave us a whole load of sanctimonious poppycock about his views on regulation, saying that there should be much less of it. May I urge the Secretary of State to keep his Ministers in tow and to ensure a proper sense of regulation, especially in the financial services industry, in which there are still many predatory practices? In constituencies such as mine, loan sharks as well as reputable financial services organisations are still preying on vulnerable families.