Public Sector Pay: Proposed Strike Action

Debate between Chris Bryant and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is always a delight to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward.

I should declare that I am a member of the GMB. When I was a priest in the Church of England, no union would take us, because if we did go on strike, it would not be very obvious what had not happened. MSF took us on for a while, and then we became members of Unite, but when Burberry was trying to close its factory in Treorchy, Rhondda, a few years ago, I worked so closely with the GMB that I thought it was right to join. I am a very proud member.

I start with the principle that it is a fundamental human right for people to be able to withdraw their labour, and any attempt to undermine that right is a contradiction of all our human rights. There may be many different reasons why someone needs to withdraw their labour, but it is worth reminding people that no trade unionist, trade union leader or member of a trade union ever takes the decision to go on strike lightly, for the very simple reason that, apart from anything else, it costs them and their family money—goodness gracious, the miners of the Rhondda knew that in spades back in the 1980s. Individual members of trade unions are proud of the work they do, so they do not want to not be in work—they want to be in work.

Many of the people we are talking about have been described as “key workers”. That phrase came into existence during the covid pandemic, when people suddenly discovered that bus drivers, train drivers, bus conductors and people who work in supermarkets or for a local council—many of whom suffered more than anybody during covid, because they were at daily risk—are all key workers because the whole of the rest of the economy simply cannot function without them. Those people know that they are essential to society, and they do not want to let down their customers, clients, passengers and patients or the people with whom they work. They are proud of their work, and they want to be in work, so it takes a lot to get a trade union or an individual member to vote for strike action.

My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter)—not “Sinon Valley”, as Tony Blair always used to call it—is absolutely right about the cost of living crisis. Energy costs in our constituencies are often even higher because many homes are difficult to insulate and to keep warm and dry, as they are basically made out of stone and rubble. If someone is on very low wages, seeing their energy costs double in a year makes a dramatic difference, whatever the Government may have done this year, and people are anxious about what will happen after April. Inflation for the poorest is even higher than the 10.1% that has been mentioned, not least because poorer people spend more of their money on the essentials in life—food, energy and housing costs—and the cost of cheaper brands has risen the most. The cost of things that fill kids’ bellies more readily, such as pasta, have risen by 45%, 47% or 48%, while bread has gone up by 34%, so inflation is even worse for the poorest.

My constituency may be different from other poorer constituencies, because more than 70% of people in the Rhondda own their homes. Many have small mortgages, but some have substantial ones. They may not have taken a long fixed-rate mortgage, because they were not sure how things would work out and did not want to be in a difficult situation in five years’ time. If someone sees their monthly rate going from £300 to £500, they will be thinking about losing their home. The problems that many pensioners are having are intensified by the fact that, if they had a small pension pot of, say, £35,000 in July, it may now be worth only £25,000 after the mini-Budget, so the annuity they might get if they retire now will be lower.

Then, on top of all that, there is wage suppression, which we have seen for 12 years for nearly every key worker. Apart from anything else, that has been counterproductive. One reason we are not getting people back into work is that there is an enormous backlog in the NHS. I am not making a partisan point here, because we have the same problem in Wales—there is an NHS backlog across the whole UK. If wages are suppressed in the NHS, fewer and fewer people will choose to work in it, more and more people will retire, and more and more people will leave it entirely, which will exacerbate the problem.

I completely support the CWU’s strike at the Royal Mail. It seems utterly preposterous to make such a small offer to the workers when significant amounts have been awarded to senior managers and shareholders. That is completely wrong. In my patch, people are worried about Royal Mail deliveries, but I am not blaming the staff; I am blaming the managers, because quite often they simply have not employed enough people to get the work done. I should add that I also support the CWU in its dispute with Openreach, which suffers from exactly the same problems as the Royal Mail.

My final points are about the Government’s role. First, it is to ensure that the laws in this land are fair to the employer and the employee. I do not think we have laws that are fair to the employee at the moment—I think the law is unbalanced. The former Prime Minister—the one we have just lost—would not have been able to become Prime Minister if the rules that presently exist for a strike ballot had been exercised for her. That is an utter hypocrisy in the Government’s line.

Secondly, where the Government have a direct, indirect or even just tangential interest or role in a dispute, they should do everything in their power to keep both sides at the table. In my experience, trade union members and trade union officials are the best deal makers in the land. The Government should learn from them and not the other way round.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Let us be fair to all our colleagues—five minutes, brothers, please.

Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster

Debate between Chris Bryant and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

That was an interesting speech, although I am not sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) carried the rest of the House. This is the iconic centre of the United Kingdom, and it is not surprising that the SNP wants to make it into a museum.

I commend the Leader of the House for the moderate, sensible, open-minded way in which he opened the debate. I suspect that very few people would disagree with anything he said, and most of what the shadow Leader of the House the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said was sensible, too. We all agree that we have to just get on with it. There have been too many delays, and—let us be realistic—they will probably still be working around us in 50, 60 or 100 years’ time. That is the way of these old buildings.

I hope we will move on from this endless debate about whether or not we have a decant. I rather resent the fact that those of us who have been arguing the case against a very lengthy decant are accused by others of just wanting to live in a comfortable place. I serve on the Sponsor Body with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar). If we had proceeded with its plans, which would have entailed a decant of up to 20 years, that decant would not have started before 2031. I can assure the House that by 2031, I will certainly be retired and quite possibly dead, so it is nothing to do with me. What the Sponsor Body finally came up with might have been a fair evaluation of what it would cost to do a full singing-and-dancing renovation and change of everything, but it was totally unrealistic, and the Commission had to step in.

There will be ways of working creatively around us. I accept that it may well be necessary to have a decant, but we have no idea how long that decant will last. If we get rid of the Daily Mail September sittings and stop sweating the building through the entire summer recess, there may come a point where we will break in July and not come back until the following January, or it may take longer—we have no idea. However, I say with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) that we should not, I am afraid, accept an amendment that just lays down a set time. We have to look at the evidence. The new Commission will do its work, and will do whatever is necessary.

There has been so much delay, and I think it is very unfair of the hon. Member for Bristol West who leads for the Opposition to blame the Government and the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), for that fact. The reason why we have had so much delay is that the Sponsor Body has come up with wildly expensive proposals, the first of which was the demolition of Richmond House. That would have been financially wasteful, with millions of pounds spent on a white elephant permanent replica Chamber; it would have been architecturally destructive, making a mockery of heritage laws; and it could have cost up to £1 billion. That proposal caused an enormous amount of delay, and I think there is a general consensus that it was right for us to do away with it. It has been delay, delay, delay.

The plans for the Palace were not much better. The Sponsor Body was planning on removing 14 lift shafts, and wanted office space for MPs cut by as much as one fifth. The programme was in danger of becoming a vast feeding frenzy for contractors and consultants at the taxpayer’s expense. A lot of those ideas were simply unrealisable, so the plans for the R&R programme that have been put forward have failed. As the Leader of the House said, we need to look at working models that have been successful, such as that used for Elizabeth Tower, which has been beautifully restored—of course, that project went over time and over budget because too little preparatory work was done, but the result is magnificent. The cast-iron roofing that the Leader of the House talked about has been an immense success. It is the largest cast-iron roof in Europe. Each piece has been taken apart, restored or replaced, and put back with meticulous skill, so I do not think it is fair to criticise the estates programme.

[Chris Bryant]

One of the problems is that lots of people advocate for having lots more of those individual projects. Something like 32 or 33 projects are going on at the moment, and one of the difficulties with the estate is that it is very tight for space, with nearly every available inch already covered in a portakabin or some kind of contractor’s arrangements. We cannot do many more projects at the same time as the current ones, and the cast-iron roofs would have been done quite a bit quicker if the previous Speaker had not insisted that work stopped whenever he was in his house. That is what is going to happen if we keep on trying to do all the work around the building while we are still in it.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point and we just have to learn to compromise. He mentions Mr Speaker. We should congratulate Mr Speaker on his own creative thinking. The Speaker’s house needed urgent repairs, which meant he had to be accommodated elsewhere. The R&R programme drew up plans costing £20 million, to tear up a Georgian townhouse on the estate and put a lift shaft through it. Mr Speaker and the previous Leader of the House grasped the nettle, visited the site itself, and decided it just needed a lick of paint and some basic work. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset, who is sitting in his place, reported that it cost just 5% of the planned £20 million to get all three empty houses back into use. That is exactly the kind of mentality we need. It requires good decision making, an eye for savings, and cutting out unnecessary embellishments.

Serving on the sponsor body has been informative. The sponsor body’s job is to oversee and scrutinise the delivery authority, but I personally believe that the information provided to the sponsor body has often been mired in the worst kind of management speak. Operations are often totally opaque and lacking in clarity. I believe that our ability to thoroughly scrutinise work has not been fully facilitated. Every time it came across a problem, it reached for the most invasive and most expensive solution. I believe that in the end it was going to provide very bad value for money. Every time we proposed alternatives, ridiculous claims about costing and timescale were thrown back. Inadequate figures were given to us. There was a lack of awareness of MPs’ work. For example, it was suggested that MPs’ staff move to shared open-plan offices. Parliamentary politics requires privacy and discretion, and dealing with constituents’ cases even more so. Often, we deal with very sensitive information. We do not work like other entities and we have to accept that Parliament is a unique place.

In conclusion, I believe that what the Leader of the House is proposing today is a sensible compromise. We are not ruling anything in or anything out. We are going to get on with it. We love this building. We are not going to put ourselves first and we are going to do the absolutely essential work to restore this Barry and Pugin masterpiece. We are not going to make it carbon neutral and fill in atriums and all the courtyards. All that sort of expensive stuff is for the birds. We are going to make this building safe and fireproof, and we will do it, hopefully, with good preparatory work, within time and within budget.

Restoration and Renewal

Debate between Chris Bryant and Edward Leigh

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I, too, wish we were debating something else. I would like to be debating, for instance, the way British Airways is treating its staff and, for that matter, its customers, but we have this debate this afternoon. I could just say, “I refer hon. Members to the speech that I made last time”, or to the one before, but, unfortunately, I am not going to do that.

I do love this building. Sometimes, it is the small quirky bits of the building that I love. It is not just the obvious historical bits. When one walks through St Stephen’s Hall, there is the painting of Wolsey demanding more money from Thomas More, who was Speaker at the time. It is a great moment of British history. I love it because it was painted by Vivian Forbes and his lover Glyn Philpot. The sad story is that, when the painting was finished and Glyn Philpot died, Vivian Forbes took his own life 24 hours later. There are so many different layers of history in this building—it is woven into every single aspect of our history—and I think that we need to preserve it, not in aspic, but we need to preserve it.

There are lots of things that have not changed since the last debate. The truth is—notwithstanding the comments from the SNP earlier, or, for that matter, from the Prime Minister in his letter yesterday—we are not going anywhere else. As I am sure the Leader of the House will remember, when they tried to get Parliament to go to York in the1460s, there was no business to transact, so it ended up not sitting properly at all. And when Parliament met in York in the 14th century it only did so because the king was terrified of an invasion by the Scots. I do not think that that is the concern of the Prime Minister at the moment, although there are some worries about a border.

I made an important point earlier about the capacity for doing additional work here in the Palace. It seems crazy, but we emptied out the cloisters to do work immediately, we got rid of all the staff who were working there, and the cloisters are still completely empty; there is no extra space on the parliamentary estate to put extra workers to be able to get the work done. That is an increasing problem. There are projects that have been done very successfully. The cast-iron roofs have been done on time and on budget. It has been an excellent project. The inside of the roof in Westminster Hall has been attended to very well. There are projects that are going well, but we are accumulating, every year, more and more additional projects, and the backlog is getting worse.

Richmond House is still contiguous to the Northern Estate where most of our parliamentary offices are. That was one of the main reasons, when I was on the Joint Committee, that we considered using Richmond House. It diminished the security threats of crossing over to some other building across the road. It is not about the convenience of Members; it just made it possible for people to do their jobs safely.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

When the hon. Gentleman was on the Joint Committee, there was not a proposal to demolish the building.

[Chris Bryant]

Actually, there was. The memory of the right hon. Gentleman is failing him, I am afraid. There was a proposal to demolish it. The bit that I think he differs on is whether there was a proposal to demolish the staircases, which some people think are intrinsic to Richmond House. Personally, I think that they are the ugliest bit of the building. The truth is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said earlier, it would be perfectly possible if people like the right hon. Gentleman had not been complaining that we had to have a Chamber that was identical to this Chamber—[Interruption.] If I am diminishing the right hon. Gentleman, my memory is different from his. If we wanted to go to a system where we slightly changed the parameters of what is in there, I am up for that, but it remains a fact that Richmond House is the only piece of land that is contiguous to the rest of the parliamentary estate and therefore safe.

As for the other things that have not changed, the building was designed as a whole, not from the very beginning, but after the fire. After 1834, one of the great, clever things that Barry and Pugin did was to amalgamate the estate into a single proposition about the British constitution, from the Commons through to the Lords and the monarch and incorporating the ancient Westminster Hall from the 11th century. That poses a real problem for those who want us to decant in part, because there is one central heating system, which is steam under high pressure; there is one electricity system; there is one drainage system; there is one water system; and there is one basement, interconnected, with a set of risers that connect it to the one attic and roof. That is the problem for the future safety of the building.

The reason I completely disagree with the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown)—it is rare for us to disagree on matters of this kind—about the idea of a partial decant, and the Commons going down to the Lords while the Lords go elsewhere, is that the Lords is not contiguous to the offices on the northern estate. So a safe passageway would be needed for votes and for people to be able to take part in debates, or people would have to walk along the pavements outside. All the advice that was given to us was that that was a security risk for us. More importantly, one of the problems with trying to keep us in the Lords—which, incidentally, is too small a Chamber with far too few seats for the House of Commons to be able to sit in—is that if we kept this building working while it was a building site, we would dramatically increase the risk of a further fire and we would increase the risk to the staff who were working in it. That was precisely the problem in Notre Dame, and that is what led to the massive fire there.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Edward Leigh

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

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I see that I have immediately prompted something. I give way to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for not waiting until I had sat down, and I will now try to get back on track.

[Chris Bryant]

I think the right hon. Gentleman was about to give way to me at the time—before we were so rudely interrupted. Earlier, he raised the issue of the cloisters being vacated, and the fact that there is nobody in there, but no work has started. He is absolutely right, and this is deeply frustrating for an awful lot of Members. We have raised this in the Finance Committee and, I think, in the Administration Committee. One of the difficulties is that we are engaged in roughly 20 major estates projects, including the Elizabeth Tower, the cast-iron roofs and the courtyards—there are many very important projects—and there simply is not enough room on site to be able to house so many staff, feed them, provide them with a place to change and all the rest of it. This is a difficult site on which to be able to do so many major projects while we still have a fully functioning House of Commons and House of Lords.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a fair point about the cloisters. I am just making my own point that the most important risk is that of fire, and I would have thought that we should drop everything else and try to deal with that.

I said earlier that I have accepted the will of the House, and it may well be necessary to have a decant, but I think it would be possible, certainly if we got rid of the September sittings—this point has not been mentioned yet—to make quicker progress. Undoubtedly, some of the problems we have been experiencing in recent years have revolved around the September sittings. I certainly believe that the Leader of the House could take professional advice on this, and if we could break up for the summer recess on 20 July, or thereabouts, and work full pelt until early October, perhaps we could make better progress.

The issue now is no longer about decant or no decant; the issue is whether, in the current economic climate, we can justify knocking down a grade II listed building, which was only completed in 1987, to accommodate a permanent replica Chamber of exactly the same size as the Chamber we are in, with Division Lobbies of the same size. To facilitate that, we will have to knock down a perfectly good listed building, which can be renovated and restored. By the way, this building, designed by Sir William Whitfield, has won numerous awards. The announcement that we were going to knock it down came just as he was approaching his death, and nearing his 100th birthday, and it is a strange way to celebrate the best of British.

When people, such as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), say that we could circumvent this process by giving ourselves planning powers, I just do not think that washes. I do not think it washes politically, and I do not think it is the right thing to do. We have to go through the normal planning procedure. This is a listed building. There will be long delays. The House must know that, already, campaigning organisations like SAVE are gearing up, preparing for a full public inquiry. Indeed, I have no doubt that there will be a full public inquiry; and there should be a full public inquiry. That could entail years of delay. Also—it is almost relevant to the point of order—there have already been disputes between the House authorities and the Ministry of Defence about the use of the car park. All these things are adding delay on to delay.

I should have thought that in the current economic climate, it would be possible to get on with the work as quickly as possible, and when it became necessary to move, to move to a cheaper option. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden mentioned Church House, but there may be security concerns. When the original Committee met, they were simply going to build a replica House of Commons in the courtyard of Richmond House, which would not have entailed demolition. Then they found that the measurements were wrong; but the courtyard is still there. We do not necessarily need a replica the same size as this Chamber. We do not necessarily need to vote during a short period in the way that we do now. As I mentioned, we could use voting terminals in the Lobbies. There are all sorts of ways of doing this job more expeditiously and more cheaply, and equally safely. That is what I would suggest.

I have had meetings with Sir Michael Hopkins, the architect of Portcullis House. He designed the building during the problems with the IRA. It is absolutely bombproof. It is not ideal, but an emergency Chamber could be placed in the atrium of Portcullis House—an infinitely cheaper option. I agree it is not ideal, but actually we do not want to be too comfortable.

The problem I fear is that we may become too comfortable. If we are in a replica Chamber that looks almost exactly like this one—although it seems to have a more IKEA, Swedish feel to it, in a nod to modernism—I think we will become too comfortable. Many Members fear that, as the architects, builders and surveyors get hold of this project, and as more and more asbestos is discovered, and more and more problems, we could be out, not just for five years but for eight or 10. That is a real fear.

I personally believe the Leader of the House; I know that she is absolutely committed to our coming back. Other Members are worried that there will be more and more debate about whether, when we come back, we should change the whole nature of this place—our procedures and all the décor and so on. The Leader of the House has to convince us that every bit of the Barry structure—this iconic building—every bit of the Pugin decoration, which is admired worldwide, will be replaced exactly as it is, so that after five or eight or 10 years, we come back to Committee Rooms, to a Chamber, to Lobbies, that look identical. Of course the electrics, air conditioning and sewerage will be safer and better, but she has to convince Members of Parliament that the building will be exactly the same; because this is an historic building. It sums up what our nation is all about.

Not many Members—I think only three of us, including the shadow Leader of the House—attended an exercise last week in which, within an hour, the House authorities organised the House of Commons moving, in an emergency, to the Chamber of the House of Lords. They can do that within an hour. We went there. The tables were changed around. We sat on the red Benches—probably the only chance I will ever get to sit on the red Benches. It was a very enjoyable experience, I have to say. Lovely décor. Very civilised atmosphere. Much less confrontational than this place. But it can be done. And I commissioned an architect, who worked pro bono, who proved that it would be possible for the House of Commons, in an emergency, to move there and to take services externally if we were dealing with them here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has also mentioned Church House.

It is not widely known that there is a flat-pack Chamber of the House of Commons, which could be set up in, for instance, Methodist Central Hall in an hour if there is an emergency. We really do have to be cognisant of public opinion. Of course we have to spend the money that is necessary; of course we have to make this place safe, but we cannot treat ourselves differently from the way that we would expect, for instance, local authorities to treat themselves in a similar situation.

When my own local authority, West Lindsey, had to move from its old guildhall to the modern guildhall, it used innovative ways of working with the private sector. When it created the chamber, it did not seek to create the old fashioned chamber, surrounded by wood and all the rest of it, which could only be used once a month. It created a room that could be used for other purposes.

The problem with creating the replica Chamber is that once we leave it what will it be used for? It is said that it will be an education centre. We have a good education centre with a mock-up of the House of Commons. I know it is only a temporary structure, but it could be made permanent. Do we really need an entire replica Chamber for 20 or 30 primary school kids? The Leader of the House said we can use it for other purposes. Every other business in the country which has to move a part of its business to another part of its premises makes sure that it can be used for other purposes. We must do the same, otherwise we will be criticised by the public, because it is their money. In creating a space, it has to capable of being used for other things.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Edward Leigh

Thursday 21st March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

With regard to the meaningful vote which we are going to have apparently next week—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Or not.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Or not. May I urge the Government to be bold and decisive in order to comply with your ruling, Mr Speaker, and to change the wording significantly so that we can have the vote that we all want? May I suggest that one way forward is by way of the unilateral declaration? A unilateral declaration can of course be changed unilaterally: we do not need the EU to agree. I suggest that we should try to persuade our colleagues in Northern Ireland that, by beefing up this declaration, we can ensure it is not necessary to prove bad faith; we just have to prove that negotiations have broken down and then we can exit the backstop. Also, it should be conditional; we sign up to this treaty on condition that the declaration is not refused by the EU. All we need to prove is that it does not ratify. So let’s be bold, let’s be decisive, and let’s get this vote into Parliament.

State Pension Age for Women

Debate between Chris Bryant and Edward Leigh

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Earlier, the hon. Gentleman referred to communications. How can it possibly be right that when I wrote to women in my constituency whom I identified might be affected, many wrote back and said that was the first time they had ever been told by anybody? That is the injustice of the situation. [Applause.]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I know this is a very important issue, but I am afraid it is a custom of the House that the Public Gallery has to remain silent. I apologise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I call Chris Bryant.

[Chris Bryant]

I had not asked to speak, Sir Edward, but if you force me to—

President Trump: State Visit

Debate between Chris Bryant and Edward Leigh

Monday 20th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

There are two ways in which those who agree that the state visit should go ahead can approach the debate. There is the argument along the lines of national self-interest, which is the relatively easy way, and there is the more difficult way: we have got to seek to understand what Mr Trump means to many people in America. I will start with the first. It seems obvious to me that great countries such as our own act in their own national self-interest, and they issue these invitations in order to further that self-interest.

Presumably, when we invited not one but two Presidents of China, we were prepared to overlook the fact that China is effectively a police state, that there is no freedom of expression, of movement or of association, and that there is outright religious persecution. In every single respect it is a state that does not share our values in any shape or form. Presumably, when we issued an invitation all those years ago to President Ceausescu and awarded him a knighthood, we felt it was in our national self-interest so to do. Indeed, we rescinded the award of the knighthood only on the day before he was executed by his own people.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point that there is not a great deal of consistency about the way in which we offer state visits, or for that matter the content of them. It was particularly useful when we offered one to the President of Colombia because that helped progress the peace process in Colombia. Would he not support the idea of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Procedure Committee doing a proper review of state visits so that we get it right for the future?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a perfectly valid point and I have no objection to it.

To continue the historical analogies, presumably when we invited President Mugabe, a racist homophobe, to have tea with the Queen, we were prepared to overlook his transgressions, and when we invited King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who presided over the ultimate misogynist state, presumably we felt that Saudi Arabia was an important ally of ours.

We have to be careful about what we wish for. Just think for a moment: if we listened to the petition—I accept that people have signed it in perfectly good faith, and it is a perfectly reasonable point of view—and accepted it and, as a result of the debate, we were to rescind the invitation, that would be catastrophic to our relationship with our closest ally. I will not labour that point, but surely my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has won the argument in the sense that our peace and security and the peace and security of the whole western world depends on our using influence with President Trump. I for one believe that our Prime Minister’s visit was an absolute triumph not only in furthering our national self-interest but by binding President Trump and his new Administration to NATO. We see the effects of that in terms of what the vice-president has been saying only this week. There is no doubt in my mind that it is in our national self-interest to accord respect and honour to our closest and greatest ally. Whether we like it or not, this man is the duly democratically elected leader of the free world.

To me, that is the easy argument to make, but I feel I have to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) in making what is probably a much more difficult and controversial argument. We had a debate a year ago on Mr Trump when speaker after speaker —even on the Conservative side—condemned him, saying he was outrageous. I was the only one who tried to understand the phenomenon and why people were supporting and voting for him. I made the point then, and will make it now, that it is unwise of us to try to transfer our own views and prejudices to the other side of the Atlantic. For instance, most people here think that I am on the far right of the political spectrum in this House, but here I am, a person who warmly supports gun control, who opposed the Iraq war and who relies entirely on the NHS. All of those things would make me an abomination in large parts of the Republican party. It is very foolish for us to lecture our conservative colleagues on the other side of the Atlantic about what is the right or improper nature of conservativism.

Mr Trump is not my sort of conservative—I have nothing in common with him—but let us look at some of his comments and the charge of misogyny. Of course, what he was reported as saying in a private conversation was horrible and ridiculous—I hope none of us would make those comments—but which one of us has not made some ridiculous sexual comment at some time in our past? [Hon. Members: “Me!”] Well, in private. Let he is without sin cast the first stone. He has apologised. That is not really a reason to withdraw an invitation.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

You’re smiling now. So you can smile.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I can smile, yes.

Even a cursory examination of the amendments made in the other place confirms that very little has been done to protect freedom of conscience. We get a crumb of comfort, it is true, from Lords amendments 1 and 2, which tighten up the quad locks that are meant to stop Churches doing same-sex marriages. We were told repeatedly in this place that the quad locks needed no tightening, but better late than never, I suppose. A sinner—even the Government—who comes late into the vineyard of truth is just as welcome.

Then there is Lords amendment 53. Apparently it means that if someone says that they believe in a man-woman marriage, they will not be deemed to be “inciting homophobic hatred”. What a bizarre country we live in, when declaring one’s support for the Marriage Act 1949, under which most of us were married, could be deemed to be stirring up hatred. Indeed, such is the risk that we have to legislate against it. I hope that amendment 53 has some read-across to the offences in section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and other offences with a much lower threshold than “homophobic incitement”. They are the laws that we should be worried about, even after our amendment to remove the “insulting” limb comes into effect.

Nothing whatever has been done to alleviate the concerns of thousands of Church schools and tens of thousands of teachers, who fear that they will be ordered to teach a view of marriage that conflicts profoundly with their deeply held views. I predict that within five years a chill will descend on the 2,200 Catholic schools, because they will feel under an obligation to teach a view of marriage that is “balanced”—a word that Ministers themselves have used. I am sorry, but the view of the Catholic Church and other Churches on marriage is not “balanced”; it is a view. It is the view that marriage is between one man and one woman for life. It is not a balanced view; it is a view, and increasingly a “balanced” view will have to be taught.

Ministers keep telling us that the views of those teachers and others who are worried about this issue are respectable and that they are free to hold and express them, but they have done nothing to guarantee that. That is being left to chance. When we have a toxic mix of this Bill and the Equality Act 2010, anything could happen. It is like an experiment with unstable substances that could blow up at any minute. The Government should be legislating to stabilise the situation, but they steadfastly refuse. Earlier this year, the House voted for my ten-minute rule Bill to protect employees from suffering detriment at the hands of their employers for believing in traditional marriage. Ministers kept saying, “It’ll never happen”, but of course it is already happening. We have all read about the cases, even before the Bill has become law. The Government just do not care enough to solve the problem and protect Church schools.

When gay rights activists—not aggressive; they have their point of view, which is just as valid as anybody else’s—demand better pension rights, the Government jump to it, and we get Lords amendment 11 and pages of consequentials. When transsexual activists—not aggressive; they have a right to their view—demand changes to the Bill, the Government jump to it, and we get Lords amendment 44 and all that goes with it. When humanist activists—not aggressive; they have a right to their point of view—demand the right to humanist weddings, the Government jump to it, and we get Lords amendment 10 and pages more like it. However, when people who believe in traditional marriage demand better protections, simply so that they cannot be mistreated for failing to support same-sex marriage, the Government harden their heart, close their mind and refuse to do a thing.

I know some people think that this will all go away after the Bill becomes an Act in the next few days. They wish it would for political reasons, but by the time of the next general election, we will have a whole catalogue of new cases like that of Adrian Smith and his Facebook page, and the Wimbledon street preacher who got locked in a cell for hours for his sermon on 1 Thessalonians. We will have teachers—such as the teachers Lord Dear referred to in his speeches in the Lords—being ordered to teach that their own views on marriage amount to nothing but bigotry. And the electorate will hold us accountable for doing nothing to help them.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Edward Leigh

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leigh]

I wish to speak to new clause 6, which has 44 co-signatories and is based on a ten-minute rule Bill I introduced earlier this year. It states:

“The protected characteristic of religion or belief may include a belief regarding the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.”

It addresses the important issue of what would happen to people who believe in a man-woman marriage and goes to the heart of the concern many have about the Bill, irrespective of our views on same-sex marriage. We are told that the Bill is all about freedom, but what about the freedom of those who disagree with it? Surely their freedoms are as precious as the freedoms of the people who support the Bill. We believe that new clause 6 provides the bare minimum of protection that such people would need.

The Equality Act 2010 outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief, gender reassignment and so on—it is pretty comprehensive. One would have thought that a person’s belief on traditional marriage, which may go to the heart of their most sincere beliefs, was covered by “religion or belief”. However, the evidence of all the cases I have studied and that we have seen in recent years is that it does not: there is no protection for these people. Whatever our views on the Bill, we are worried about what will happen in the workplace and ensuring protection for people who take a traditional view of marriage.

The Government have apparently done a lot of work to protect churches from being compelled to approve same-sex marriage by having to solemnise them. I give credit to the Government, although they overstate the case slightly when they say that the Church of England is now entirely happy. The Church of England briefing on Second Reading stated:

“we doubt the ability of the government to make legislation watertight against challenge in the European courts or against a ‘chilling’ effect on public discourse.”

It is important to bear in mind that “chilling” effect, something I mentioned in my intervention.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument about the chilling effect, I think he has fundamentally misunderstood the original Equality Act. No belief—transubstantiation, the virgin birth, the resurrection or any other belief—is expressly mentioned in the Act, so to elevate this single viewpoint, which may be held by a religious or non-religious person, is surely bizarre.

[Mr Leigh]

No, I do not think it is bizarre. We are at the centre of public discourse and I will deal with precisely that point. Is what I am proposing a step too far? I do not believe so, and I want to refer to recent cases. I will finish my point on the Church of England and come back to the hon. Gentleman’s point, which is serious and I want to address it.

The Church of England briefing went on to state:

“We retain serious doubts about whether the proffered legal protection for churches and faiths from discrimination claims would prove durable. Too much emphasis, we believe, is being placed on the personal assurances of Ministers.”

To be fair to the Government, they have at least put something in the Bill to protect churches, but what about individual conscience? There is not a word in the Bill about that.

I have to say straight away that new clause 6 is absolutely not a wrecking amendment. It does not stand the remotest chance of blocking the Bill, nor would it elevate or bring the law into an area wholly different from where it has been before. I want to make it absolutely clear that at 7 o’clock hon. Members can be strongly in favour of the Bill and still vote for new clause 6. Those who support the Bill but are worried about freedom of conscience should back new clause 6, because it is about an individual’s freedom in the workplace to say, “I’m sorry, but I think that marriage can only ever take place between a man and a woman.” In a moment, I will outline the case law and explain the problem.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We should indeed treat one another with tolerance and treat everybody’s sexuality with understanding, but the fundamental question we are deciding today is whether English law should declare for the first time that two people of the same sex can marry.

Parliament is sovereign—we can vote for what we want—but we must be very careful that law and reality do not conflict. In 1648, the Earl of Pembroke, in seeking to make the point that Parliament is sovereign, said that Parliament can do anything but make a man a woman or a woman a man. Of course, in 2004, we did exactly that with the Gender Recognition Act. We are now proposing to make equally stark changes to the essence of marriage. During the civil partnership debates, I was given solemn assurances on the Floor of the House, including by some sitting on the Opposition Benches now, that the Civil Partnership Act would not lead to full same-sex marriage.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Leigh]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman who gave those assurances to me.

[Chris Bryant]

Assurances from me do not necessarily determine what happens in Parliament in future. Several hon. Members have raised what I said in that debate. At that time, I believed that civil partnership was the be-all and end-all of the story. I have since entered a civil partnership and believe that the world has moved on. Many Conservative Members who voted against civil partnerships know that Britain’s mind has changed and want to reflect that in a change of the law.

[Mr Leigh]

The worry some of us have is that the world, in the hon. Gentleman’s mind, could move on again, and that many of the assurances we are being given may not count for very much.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Edward Leigh

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leigh]

Well, the Anglican Church is a very relaxed Church, and many Anglican bishops have fairly broad views about the existence of God. The hon. Gentleman’s point is apposite.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I delight in the relaxed nature of the Anglican communion. I am slightly worried, however, because the hon. Gentleman says there is not a Catholic plot yet he asserts there was a James III. If there had indeed been James III, there would not be Elizabeth II.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leigh]

If I made a bad or weak point, I willingly withdraw it and accept my right hon. Friend’s superior knowledge.

Amendment 1 makes an important point. It is almost as important as the one that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset made. If the legislation stays as it is, we will return to the world of the Act of Settlement, in which people were incredibly suspicious of some kind of papist plot. If someone had been tarnished in any way at any time in their life with Catholicism, they were excluded from the throne. As it happens, my eldest son is 640th in line to the throne, because he is descended from the Electress Sophia through his mother. He is not excluded from the throne as he was baptised as Russian Orthodox, although he has been raised a Catholic. So in our family we have found a way around the bar, but if the Bill stays as it is, we will return to a ridiculous, bizarre and absurd situation in which someone must never, at any point in their life, have taken communion in a Catholic church. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there are many mixed marriages and we go to each other’s churches regularly. Even those who oppose new clause 1 must accept that the logical and right thing to do is for the person to be able to make an election at the time they become Head of State.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry to be pedantic, but the hon. Gentleman has made the same mistake several times in this debate and in previous debates. There is no such thing as Russian Orthodox baptism. There is Christian baptism, end of story. All Churches accept one another’s baptisms. The one difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church—and perhaps as a Roman Catholic he could persuade senior people in his Church to change their position—is that the Catholic Church believes that Anglican orders are null and void.

[Mr Leigh]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think you will rule me out of order if I get into the intricacies of baptism, and which baptism is recognised by which church. In fact, the Catholic Church does recognise Russian Orthodox baptisms and considers itself in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church. The problem lies not with the Catholic Church, but with the Russian Orthodox Church, which does not want Catholics to take communion in its churches.

We are in danger of becoming enmeshed in the kind of arguments that enveloped us at the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century. All my hon. Friend is trying to say in these very simple amendments is that, even if one supports the legislation as it is currently drafted, surely one should have the right to be judged on one’s faith at the time that one becomes Head of State or wants to become Head of State, and not be judged on what baptism one has received, what churches one attended in the past or what communion one has taken. Amendment 1, therefore, is even more important and apposite than new clause 1.

I will end on this point. As unlikely as it is in the near future that anybody will be banned from the throne of England because of their faith, I hope that we in this House do not accept the current situation when we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the law. We have been told so often that this is so complex and difficult to do that it may be the only chance in a generation. Is today not our chance in our time to stand up for religious freedom once and for all, and to say that all the disputes and hatreds of the past are now finished and that no office, however great, will be barred to someone because of their faith?

Sergei Magnitsky

Debate between Chris Bryant and Edward Leigh

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am glad that we are having this opportunity to discuss this disturbing case, as it is very important that we do so. The death of Sergei Magnitsky in prison, when guilty of no crime, makes us appreciate living in a society where we enjoy rule of law. That he was ever imprisoned in the first place shows that Russia still has a long way to go if it is fully to leave behind the stark inhumanity of the Soviet period and reach the sunlit uplands of being a well-constituted, constitutional state.

There has been progress, however, although it has been limited. We should welcome the Russian investigative committee’s acknowledgment that Sergei died because of the conduct of the authorities who imprisoned him, and a criminal case has opened against the two doctors involved. It is disturbing, of course, that there have been delays, and it is ridiculous that Mr Magnitsky is now posthumously back on trial.

However, this debate also gives us an opportunity to discuss what is going on in Russia at present. Ever since marrying my half-Russian wife, I have taken a deep interest in Russia. I have no interest to declare, as she is not linked in any way with anyone associated with Putin or the Soviet era. Her family was expelled in 1917, despite donating the Michael palace—or, perhaps, because of that—where my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) can see the Repin masterpieces.

I have long been interested in Russia, therefore, which is why I was delighted to be asked by the Council of Europe to go there this week as one of its official observers. I think I am the only Member to have been in Russia this week; I have been there for the past five days. I travelled there full of cynicism about what is going on in Russia, and with concerns about Mr Putin’s party, and I should state at the outset that I do not condone in any way the restriction on the number of candidates or the lack of airtime for opposition candidates—they had some airtime, but not in prime time.

On Sunday, I spent 13 hours visiting polling stations in a rather drab suburb of St Petersburg, and I was impressed. Frankly, there is democracy working there. I was out at the polling stations before dawn, seeing the transparent ballot boxes being opened. The count was operated not by party officials, but by local people, mainly teachers. As far as I could see, it was done properly, according to the rules. I talked, through an interpreter, to many observers from all parties, who were present at all times. I saw the votes being counted. Generally, the atmosphere was good, and I saw no intimidating police presence.

I therefore want to rebalance the debate slightly. There has been a lot of Russia-bashing and Putin-bashing so far. I make no defence of the regime, but we must bear in mind that in my own lifetime Russia was a terrifying Stalinist dictatorship where people could be shot for expressing their point of view, so let us at least acknowledge that there has been some progress. Even 22 years ago it was a stultifying one-party state.

[Chris Bryant]

So was Spain, but the changes in that country have been much more dramatic and serious. Did the hon. Gentleman not see the reports of people who work for the Russian state being told that if they did not hand over a postal ballot form for somebody else to vote on their behalf, they would lose their jobs?

[Mr Leigh]

Well, we had accreditation and we were allowed to go and see all the absentee voting rolls. In the polling stations I visited, the absentee voting rolls were only about 10% of the total. Even if 10% of them were fraudulent or represented votes made under pressure from others, that could not significantly have affected the result. I am afraid that, whether we like it or not, in the polling station where I saw the count Putin won clearly. That leads to the question we have to ask ourselves: is Putin the bar to liberal pluralist democracy that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) described in his excellent article earlier this week in The Daily Telegraph, or is there some evidence that the reason why he is quite popular in Russia is that not all Russians want pluralist liberal democracy? I make no defence of that point of view; I just ask that question. In his article, my right hon. and learned Friend said that

“the only opponents permitted to stand in the election were the Communists and an unelectable oligarch”,

but all the parties represented in the Duma were allowed to stand. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) laughs; I do not pretend that the election was perfect, but progress is being made. We have to acknowledge that there were other candidates.

House of Lords Reform

Debate between Chris Bryant and Edward Leigh

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leigh]

That is absolutely right. Perhaps we have spent too much time, even this afternoon, talking about methods of election rather than about the sort of men and women whom we want in the second Chamber and what sort of job we want them to do. Apparently, the sort of men and women we want are people of expertise who are good at revising legislation, and I submit that we have very large numbers of dedicated Members of the second Chamber who do precisely that. Of course, there are some who are lazy, corrupt or bad—and some are good, some are old and some are young—but there are scores of people up there who do their job as men and women of expertise in revising and improving legislation. Let us concentrate on the sort of people we want up there rather than being absolutely obsessed by the methods of election.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman rightly says that one of the most important things in the second Chamber is having a number of people of independent mind. Is it his experience that party leaders, when recommending people to go into the second Chamber, primarily think about their independence and their voting record in this House?

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) knows that I have great respect for him. He is adamantine in his positions, holding to them with consistency and firmness, and I respect him for it enormously. Often I disagree with him, but I almost entirely agree with him on this Bill, and I also think that he has made a good case this evening. He referred to Conservative principles, so I wish to nick a few words that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) reminded some Welsh colleagues of this morning in Westminster Hall. As he said, Evelyn Waugh asked what the point of a Conservative Government is if it does not turn the clock back, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Stone will agree with that.

However, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about thresholds in referendums because, broadly, they are not a good idea. As these amendments have shown, it is difficult to know whether the threshold should relate to the turnout—the number of people who vote—or the turnout of those who express a preference. In other words, should it leave out or include those who spoiled their ballot paper? Alternatively, should it relate to those who vote yes to change? Obviously, in countries that have written constitutions all this tends to be laid down; it is one of the key elements that is written down. If someone wants to change any element of the constitution in Germany, Spain or many other countries, they have to obtain a fixed percentage—normally greater than an absolute majority—to be able to effect change. In the German constitution, any change has to be given a successful mandate after two subsequent general elections. I do not believe that that is the way we have tended to do things in the British system.

[Mr Leigh]

I am curious to know why the Labour party takes the attitude it does. Is it because it is, in principle, opposed to thresholds or is it because it is scarred by its experience in 1979, when the referendum would have gone through but for the threshold, which ushered in the vote of confidence, 18 years of Tory role and all the rest of it? Does Labour have a principled objection or is it just history?

[Chris Bryant]

The scars of history can give us principles—that is the truth of it. That may well apply to the Conservative party too in relation to some of the things it has had to change in recent years. I point out that if there were to be a threshold for election to this House or to council seats, especially in council by-elections, there would undoubtedly be some occasions when people would not be returned, because voters might choose to do precisely what happens, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) has said, in some countries where there is a threshold.