Functioning of Government

Debate between Chris Bryant and Michael Ellis

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

The business of government will continue functioning as the public would expect it to do. I reject the characterisation that the hon. Member makes, and I suspect that the vast majority of the general public in this country would also reject that characterisation.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister should be making the statement in this House, frankly, not anywhere else, so that we could question him about the functioning of government. I think, Mr Speaker, that you would prefer that as well. Let me just ask the Minister this. There are two major crises at the moment: one is the cost of living crisis, which is facing many millions of families; and the other is the situation in Ukraine and across NATO. There is a real possibility that a Government might have to deploy further troops in the next few months, for proper reasons. A caretaker Government cannot do that—it simply cannot: the rules forbid them from doing that. Yet I fear that this Prime Minister—the disgraced, deselected Prime Minister—will be more dangerous in these next three months, if he is allowed to have another three months, than he has been in the last three years. Can the Minister please make sure that we have a proper Government soon—in other words, before the summer recess?

[Michael Ellis]

We have a proper Government, and proper government continues. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he talks about the cost of living and Ukraine, but I have hardly heard him or his hon. Friends speak of those subjects over the past six months. They have mostly been talking about personalities. It is this Government who have been getting on with the business of representing the United Kingdom in international fora and have led the way on Ukraine and, when it comes to dealing with the global cost of living crisis, having been doing that too.

Standards in Public Life

Debate between Chris Bryant and Michael Ellis

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

My hon. Friend would be right if he were working under the assumption that those making the appointment knew that the individual in question had the wrong behaviours and the wrong attitudes. Submitting that it is a possibility, or that there are rumours, would not be sufficient; that is the crux of the difference.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I hope one day that the Minister plays these things back and listens to himself. I do not think he will be proud of himself in later days. I know that many decent Conservative MPs feel terribly ashamed of everything that has been happening in this sordid process. Is not this the real problem? If the boss is someone who has spent all his political career trying to get away with things, and finding himself innocent in the court of his own opinion; if he boasts to everybody, laughingly, that all the sex pests support him for the leadership; if, whenever he gets into trouble, he tries to destroy the system; then all his allies will endlessly take liberties. It does not then feel like a Government who are trying to serve the British people. It just feels like a Government who are trying to help themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Michael Ellis

Thursday 9th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

The hon. Lady is right to raise that case, and there are many tragic and appalling cases that are similar to it. This is why the Government launched the inquiry, it is why they asked Sir Robert Francis to write his report, and it is why they are acting in a way in which previous Governments over the course of decades have not acted. We will process the matter just as soon as we reasonably, practicably can.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Speaker—the happiest of birthdays.

Why are the Government so bloated? In the UK, we have more Government Ministers than France, Germany and Italy put together, and more than India, Canada and Australia put together. When I arrived in this House in 2001, the Prime Minister made do with one Parliamentary Private Secretary. This Prime Minister has four PPSs; Mrs Thatcher had only one. Why is this Prime Minister so much less efficient than either Tony Blair or Mrs Thatcher? Is it not time, if we are going to have a cull of civil servants, that we had a cull of Ministers? At least one quarter of the Front Bench should go. Would somebody like to name one?

Standards in Public Life

Debate between Chris Bryant and Michael Ellis

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

Not at all. There is a constitutional imperative that the Prime Minister of the day, no matter what party he or she is from, must have the right to select their Ministers and must have confidence in their Ministers. That is a constitutional imperative and it is not inconsistent with the code and the independent adviser’s wishes.

Let me rest for a moment on the change that has been made in respect of sanctions, because it exemplifies the point about the Government’s considering and responding to the recommendations of others. It has always been the case, under successive Administrations, that a range of potential outcomes are available when it is determined that an aspect of the code has been broken. Some examples have been cited from previous Administrations. Members need only cast their minds back to the case of Baroness Scotland in 2009, who apologised for unknowingly employing an illegal worker and paid the associated civil penalty of £5,000, but when then Prime Minister Gordon Brown concluded that no further action was necessary, he made that determination of his own volition.

In the interests of fairness, I could equally well mention the 2012 investigation into Baroness Sayeeda Warsi under the coalition Government, or the current independent adviser’s finding that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) made a technical breach of the code in failing to declare that his sister’s company had become an approved supplier to the NHS.

The test of whether a Minister remains in office has always been the continued confidence of the Prime Minister, so I am not going to criticise previous Labour Prime Ministers for making that determination, and nor would I criticise anyone in that position. They have a difficult office to fulfil and they must make a determination. If a breach of the code is extremely minor in the eyes of most but the Prime Minister has lost confidence in the Minister in question, that will be it for that Minister. That is the way it has to work.

That is the test of whether a Minister remains, yet over time a false impression has grown that any breach, large or small, across a wide-ranging, detailed document of 26 pages, must result in resignation. Correcting that false impression has been a concern not just for the Government but for those who advise on ethics in government. In its “Upholding Standards in Public Life” report, the Committee on Standards in Public Life noted:

“No other area of public life has such a binary system of sanctions, and in both Parliament and the Civil Service there are a range of sanctions available according to the seriousness of the offence. There is no reason why this should not be the case for ministers.”

[Chris Bryant]

The ministerial code says:

“It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.”

I am sure the Minister agrees with that—“paramount importance”. The Prime Minister has now said nine times in the House that the level of unemployment is lower now than it was before the pandemic. That is untrue. The Prime Minister accepts it is untrue: he was asked about it by one of the members of the Liaison Committee and said, “Yes, but I have corrected the record.” Unfortunately, he has not corrected the record, and he has not even corrected the record about not having corrected the record yet. Does that not mean the code should say:

“Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister”—

unless it is the Prime Minister?

[Michael Ellis]

If I may say so, that is a rather poor example to cite, because what the Prime Minister is doing is emphasising the fact that unemployment in this country is lower now than it has been for generations. [Interruption.]

Until—[Interruption.] Can I carry on? Until now, the code has been silent on the specific consequences for breaches, apart from in some defined instances. The code sets out that knowingly misleading this House is a breach of the code for which resignation is expected. The code still says that—it is stated in paragraph 1.3.c, not one word of which has changed—but now it also includes more detail on other possible sanctions. In particular, it makes mention of a public apology, remedial action or the removal of ministerial salary for a period—again, something that this House can also sanction in certain circumstances. I do not know whether Members are arguing to the contrary.

Sanctions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Michael Ellis

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

The instruments before us were laid under the powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018—also known as the sanctions Act. These instruments came into effect at midnight last night.

As stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we have announced the largest and the most severe package of punitive economic and trade sanctions that Russia has ever seen in response to Putin’s pre-meditated, pre-planned and barbaric invasion. We will continue to ratchet up the pressure, working in concert with our allies around the world. We have already imposed sanctions on Vladimir Putin, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, five Russian banks, 120 businesses and a long list of Russian oligarchs. Taken together, this targets assets worth hundreds of billions of pounds. Throughout, we have worked with our allies, including to agree to remove selected Russian banks from the SWIFT system and we have agreed to target the Russian central bank, but we will go further. I want to say to this House that we will continue to stand with the Ukrainian people in their heroic efforts to face up to unbridled aggression and that nothing is off the table.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Let me take the right hon. and learned Gentleman back to what he said about the number of individuals who have been sanctioned, as I do not think it is hundreds since this situation in Ukraine—it is eight. It is hundreds since 2014, and that conflation is unhelpful. As I understand it, the Government are finding it difficult to get all their ducks in a row in relation to these individual oligarchs, and the European Union is doing this much quicker. I hope he heard what I said earlier, because I think that that is because the legislative measure used in the EU is more effective in providing legal certainty for the sanctioning body. Why do we not put names of people on our sanctions? There is not a single name on the measure before us. We do this in a very legalistic way and the danger is that Mr Abramovich will have sold everything by the time we get round to sanctioning him.

[Michael Ellis]

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is not often that people refer to the mechanisms of the EU as speedy. If he says that they are speedier than ours, clearly that is something for the system to look at. But we have a system that we are using at the moment, that has applied and that is what we have to go through. We are acting faster than ever before and we are leading the way in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister said earlier that all these measures come into force immediately. Why on earth does the Government measure allow VTB Bank, the second-largest Russian bank, 30 days for clients to be able to remove their assets? I do not even know what the metaphor is in terms of horses and bolts and having already escaped, but this seems preposterous.

[Michael Ellis]

I do not think the individuals involved will consider it a weak measure; on the contrary, I think they will consider it a draconian measure, which is exactly what it is.

Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff Appointment

Debate between Chris Bryant and Michael Ellis

Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a bit difficult, is it not, to argue that there will be greater accountability when at the first hurdle the man is not even here to be accountable? It is a preposterous appointment—a sow’s ear of an appointment—which confuses the various different aspects of Government and makes it far more difficult for us to hold the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) to account. Does anyone in Downing Street yet realise that the problem is the lack of control; it is the lack of accountability; and it’s the fibs, isn’t it?

[Michael Ellis]

I do not know what the hon. Member means. What I do know is that the Government are delivering on our manifesto promises, as I said. He must recognise that there will be increased transparency and accountability because an elected Member of Parliament answerable to this House will be chief of staff at No. 10.

Coronavirus Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Michael Ellis

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May I warmly commend the hon. Member for High Peak (Robert Largan), who I think made a magnificent speech? He delivered it with simple earnestness and a dignity that will commend him to many Members of this House. It is a sad moment, is it not, when one thinks that being an MP is the most secure job around. He was quite right to say not only what he said about no party having a monopoly on truth—ideological purity rarely does anybody any favours—but what he said about being an independently minded Member. I warmly commend everything that he said.

However, I completely despair of some of the scenes that I have seen from our fellow citizens over the last few days. The panic buying—the hoarding, frankly—of essential goods, which will therefore be denied to many people who most need them, including our key workers, is a disgrace. It is born out of selfishness and it must stop. People ignoring advice—because somehow or other they think that they will be immune to the disease or that it will only affect some other people—is, again, an instance of massive selfishness, and it really must stop. I am sick and tired of people saying that they know better than all the experts. The number of armchair epidemiologists and virologists in this country seems to have grown dramatically without any evidence of qualification.

I hate the idea that there are companies that are actively profiteering in this country. It was a criminal offence in the war and it should be a criminal offence now. I hate the scam merchants who are going round preying on the vulnerable at the moment, which is why it is all the more important that local councils run proper schemes for volunteer forces, so that if somebody knocks at the door, an elderly person can know that they are getting the right person.

I hate the way that some of our police have been treated in the last few days—spat at and coughed over deliberately, as an offensive weapon as it were, when they have merely been trying to prevent people from gathering, in the way that the Government have been advising. This goes back to what we have been trying to do for the last few years to stop assaults on our emergency workers, and I bet my bottom dollar that there will be more assaults on emergency workers during this process. This must come to an end. We as a nation must show the best side of our humanity, not the worst side of our humanity.

And I am sorry, but to those politicians in various different countries around the world who have somehow or other tried to dismiss the experts, including those who have dismissed the idea of vaccination over the last few years, I say this: you are dangerous and you must stop it. People will die because of your misinformation.

This is, of course, a draconian Bill, for two main reasons. First, it suspends lots of protections for individuals, such as who is able to certify a death. I know why the provision is there, but, frankly, the idea that in the end it could end up just being a funeral director certifying a death is worrying, let alone the provisions in relation to sectioning under the Mental Health Act 1983. The Bill also gives Ministers the power to impose significant restrictions, which we all know are draconian. On top of that, the Attorney General rang me—I am grateful for the phone call the other day—

[The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)]

The Solicitor General.

[Chris Bryant]

All right. Let us stand on these things; they are the ones that matter. The Solicitor General rang me the other day and made the important point that we are suspending, very unusually, the normal process in allowing Ministers to switch powers on and off. All of these things are extraordinary in peacetime.

There are some things we have to do simultaneously, and they have to happen at the same time. First, there must be a deal for sole traders and the self-employed. I have had people ringing up my office in floods of tears worrying about how they are going to make ends meet over the next few weeks, and they need an answer to that urgently. Undoubtedly, because of the ludicrous misbehaviour of so many of our fellow citizens in the past few days, we will have to move forward with enforced measures. That must happen, but it cannot happen before the Government put in place provisions for sole traders and the self-employed.

We have to put much more protection in place for our NHS staff. Every single fashion brand in this country, from Marks and Spencer through to Burberry, should be ringing up the Government now to say, “What can we do to provide more personal protective equipment for staff?” Many local councils, including my own, have hardly a stitch to give their key workers. We need to give them that protection.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Michael Ellis

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I always welcome communication from the hon. Gentleman and, in fact, from any Member. The issue of manifestly excessive sentences is one for the defence in each case, and there are mechanisms by which, within a time limit, defence lawyers can appeal to the Court of Appeal against a sentence that they consider to be manifestly excessive. It is not a matter for the Law Officers; we deal with unduly lenient sentences.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Assaults on emergency workers continue to increase, particularly against ambulance workers and people working in the NHS and in the police. Surely that is a disgrace. I have yet to see a single sentence handed down in such cases that is not unduly lenient. One reason for that is that the Sentencing Council has still not introduced any guidelines in relation to assaults on emergency workers since the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill became an Act more than a year ago. Will the Solicitor General ring up the chaps or the women who run the Sentencing Council and ensure that we get proper sentences for people who attack our emergency workers?

Exiting the European Union (Transport)

Debate between Chris Bryant and Michael Ellis

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Of course, everything that I do in the Department for Transport considers these important issues of climate change, and my officials are very alive to this issue.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Very frequently in the measure, the words “notified body” are replaced with “approved body”. Why is that so common a feature?

[Michael Ellis]

I am going to come to that right now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

I always look like this.

[Chris Bryant]

No, the Minister does not always look quite like that. This proves yet again what many of us have felt for a long time: that Brexit is proving far more complicated than anybody ever thought it would be, and is using an awful lot of our time and energy. Whether it will produce anything more than wind is difficult to know.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Michael Ellis

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

That is a matter for the House. It is vital that the Palace is safeguarded in the right way for the reasons that my hon. Friend has indicated. The Government want to ensure that the solution is deliverable and value for money, and are taking their time to consider the detail of the proposed recommendations and the implications very carefully.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

“Taking their time” is the understatement of the year! The Joint Committee was chaired by two Ministers, one of whom, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), is sitting on the Front Bench. He was staring at the back of the head of the Deputy Leader of the House, going, “Just get on with it, man.” Get on with it!

[Michael Ellis]

There are pressures on parliamentary time—I think the hon. Gentleman is responsible for some of those pressures—but the reality is that the matter is of significant importance, and we will proceed as soon as possible.

Palace of Westminster: Restoration and Renewal

Debate between Chris Bryant and Michael Ellis

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Michael Ellis]

It is fair to point out, as was mentioned, that a great deal of work is ongoing while Parliament sits, including, for example, repairs to the roof and other essential items of maintenance. That is a monumental undertaking, and a great deal of work undoubtedly needs to be done in order to set that into train.

We have heard what the Joint Committee has recommended: that a full decant is the cheapest, quickest and lowest-risk option. It also proposes the establishment of a delivery authority, overseen by a sponsor board, which would first be established in shadow form to draw up budgets and a business case, before a final vote in both Houses to approve the plans.

The Government have undertaken to provide time for a full debate and vote in due course on the Committee’s report. The hon. Member for Rhondda will recollect from his duties in this place that time is always at a premium for business managers, particularly so the moment.

[Chris Bryant]

That is all very well, but to be honest, “in due course” is the kind of phrase that weasels use. It means that someone does not really intend to do something in any expeditious way. Nearly 20 weeks have now passed. We have been told that, every year we delay, the project costs an extra £85 million. The finger will be pointing at the Minister if something goes wrong, as he has just described—so get on with it man!

[Michael Ellis]

Shall we put it this way? It will happen if not in due course, then as soon as is reasonably practicable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

We aim to bring the matter to a vote as soon as is reasonably practicable. As has been made clear this morning, in recent weeks colleagues have suggested a number of alternative proposals, some of which the House authorities have commissioned additional research on. Those also need to be considered, and that includes the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, which have been analysed in detail. A copy of the House’s report will be placed in the Library later today and is available electronically now.

The House authorities have been keen to engage with Members, most recently through two well-attended drop-in sessions—we organised those—with the programme team. Members are also encouraged to arrange to be taken on a tour of the basement areas. It is not compulsory to go with the hon. Member for Rhondda—

[Chris Bryant]

But it is available.

[Michael Ellis]

It is available, but other tours can be organised.

Good Parliament Report

Debate between Chris Bryant and Michael Ellis

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mrs Moon. I very much congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) on securing this important debate. If I may say so, I would like to see more Members like her. She can be proud to be here and we are proud to have her. I thank Professor Sarah Childs for her report. This is a recent report and a significant work. The work she continues to do on the subject of gender and politics is important.

I have listened to the contributions of hon. Members with great interest and I assure them that the Government take this subject seriously. The debate comes at an important time for Parliament as an institution as it considers the recommendations made in “The Good Parliament” report.

In the report, which was published a few months ago in July 2016, Professor Childs outlines a blueprint for a more representative and inclusive House of Commons. It contains 43 recommendations to a variety of stakeholders, including the Government but not just the Government. Also included are the Speaker of the House, the House of Commons Commission and a number of Select Committees in the House among others. The report also recommends the establishment of a Commons reference group on representation and inclusion.

Mention has been made of the Women and Equalities Committee, an important Committee of the House, which is undertaking an inquiry into women in the House of Commons after 2020. It is examining both the impact of the proposed boundary changes and the recommendations made in Professor Childs’ report. The Government have submitted written evidence to the inquiry and very much look forward to reading the Committee’s report.

All sides should acknowledge that progress is being made. This is the most gender-diverse Parliament in British history and we should celebrate our many talented parliamentary colleagues. We have our second female Prime Minister, and women now make up an unprecedented third of the House and a third of our Cabinet. Therefore, the House as an institution has made great strides since 2010. The House of Commons nursery opened on 1 September 2010 to support Members and other passholders with childcare responsibilities. The nursery now provides a post-6 pm service, and of course the children of Members have unrestricted access to the Estate when they are accompanied by a parent.

The House of Commons monitors and reports on the diversity of its staff. The Commons has goals to increase the diversity of its staff and monitors the position carefully and actively. Outreach has greatly improved and grown, including the annual Parliament week, and civil marriages, for example, can now be conducted on the Estate. Improvements have been made and changes have taken place, but there is still a long way to go to reach a representative and inclusive House. That is not just about finding diverse talent. This should be a place where all people want to work. The Government are carefully considering the recommendations contained in Professor Childs’ report and look forward to working with the Commons reference group on representation and inclusion, which is considering the recommendations.

A lot of progress could be made if the main parties worked together to build a more consistent voluntary approach to growing diverse talent. I am glad that only a week or two ago the Women and Equalities Committee took evidence from all the main parties about this important issue. That hearing received media attention, which reflects the good work that the Committee is doing. Indeed, “The Good Parliament” report specifically called on the Leader of the House of Commons to support the permanent establishment of that Select Committee. It is clear that the Committee has a key role in driving forward this agenda, so I am pleased to say that the Government are indeed able to offer that support.

Professor Childs also recommended setting the recess dates for each parliamentary session at least one session in advance. Members and staff of the House, together with their families, want to know that information as far in advance as possible. That is perfectly understandable, so we make every effort, as previous Governments no doubt did, to announce recess dates as soon as is reasonably practicable. However, the setting of recess dates is complex and depends on many varying factors, not least the progress of legislation through this House and the other House. It is difficult to settle a whole session in advance. The consideration of Lords amendments, for example, could never be predicted before a Bill has even begun its passage through both Houses.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but this is nonsense. It is perfectly easy to work out when the recess dates will be next year—I can give the Minister a draft later this evening if he wants. At this stage last year I predicted exactly what the recess dates would be this year, and that was what the Minister ended up announcing. Frankly, I do not know why he cannot get on with doing it for next year now.

[Michael Ellis]

Of course, if it were as easy as that, no doubt the Labour Government would have done it between 1997 and 2010. With regards to the recommendation relating to the conference recess, it is important to note that any decision would have to be made some years in advance because things are booked years in advance—large-scale plans are made for conferences by all the parties—and it would require cross-party agreement. As always, such issues are subject to discussions between parties, which should continue to be the case. Only if agreement were reached on that change would it be possible to consider that proposal and the one to abolish sitting Fridays.

On that subject, Members will know that the Procedure Committee has looked in detail at that. Abolishing sitting Fridays, as referred to in Professor Childs’ report, has not formed part of the package of recommendations in the Committee’s latest report on private Members’ Bills. Should the Committee be minded to resume the line of inquiry, the Government would consider the proposals in detail and respond in the appropriate manner.

With regards to political parties providing data relating to parliamentary candidates, also referred to in Professor Childs’ report, there are no plans to introduce legislation at present. Once again, we believe we can make progress if the parties build a more consistent voluntary approach to growing diverse talent. I am glad that the Women and Equalities Committee took evidence from all the parties about that.

One other specific proposal I want to talk about is the aim to increase the voice of disabled people in this place, which is also under consideration. The three-year pilot of the access to elected office fund, which aims to support people with disabilities to stand for election as local councillors or Members of Parliament, is being reviewed. The views of disabled candidates, all political parties and disability charities have been sought as part of this inclusive process. An announcement about the future of the fund will be made in due course.

To conclude, I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and who continue to contribute to this area of work. We thank Professor Childs for her work and, for that matter, Mr Speaker for his leadership.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Debate between Chris Bryant and Michael Ellis

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I completely agree. I think that this will politicise the Speaker in a way that is not only unhelpful to the House—

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Just calm down.

[Michael Ellis]

I am very calm. Will he give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Not yet, because I am replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham). The other problem is that, as several Members of the House of Lords have said, there is a danger that these certificates will become justiciable. I fully accept that under article 9 of the Bill of Rights any proceeding in Parliament should not be impeached or questioned in a court of law or any other place. However, it is clear that many legal experts believe that, by making such a sharp divide within the House, the new certification process will lead to the undermining of article 9 and to the decisions of the Speaker being questioned in a court of law. I think that that is another very dangerous route to go down.

Border Force

Debate between Chris Bryant and Michael Ellis

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister because it is clear that the Department under his leadership has been doing much—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Under his leadership?

[Michael Ellis]

Under his leadership on the immigration issue, the Department has done extremely well to improve UKBA over the last year, because is it not true that we inherited a massive pig in a poke from the last Labour Government, including massive net immigration, uncontrolled transitional arrangements for eastern Europeans, the Human Rights Act 1998, a 450,000 asylum backlog and all the rest of it? The Minister inherited a complete mess from the Labour party, and does he agree that we are doing everything to improve that position?

2014 JHA Opt-out Decision

Debate between Chris Bryant and Michael Ellis

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but does he agree that the changes envisaged to the European arrest warrant as enunciated by the Home Secretary a few days ago make it a very different kettle of fish?

[Chris Bryant]

You’ve already made that point.

[Michael Ellis]

I see the Labour Benches are as full as I would expect them to be, which says something about the interest of the Opposition in this matter. Does my hon. Friend agree that the European arrest warrant will be something completely different because its charging decisions will be made beforehand, and that proportionality is another factor that must be carefully considered?

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Michael Ellis

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). When he talked about the temple of Solomon, I was somewhat concerned about the number of pillars he was adding to the established archaeology of the building. The fact that it was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar many centuries ago also made me worry about quite what direction the hon. Gentleman was going in, let alone whether we were going to start talking about how many wives and concubines Solomon had under the provisions of his own royal marriages Act.

I support the two main thrusts of what the Bill is trying to do, but I think that we will end up ruing its passage. That is not because I disagree with the principle of abolishing male-preference primogeniture so that women can inherit equally with men, nor because of the minor adjustment to the provision on those who marry Roman Catholics being allowed to continue in the succession. My problem with the Bill is that it does something very significant that I do not think the Government intend it to do. The Royal Marriages Act 1772 provided that an individual who was in line to the throne had to get consent from the monarch at the time of marriage. If the monarch refused to provide that consent, or the individual refused to ask for it, their marriage would simply become null and void. I do not think that any of us believes that anybody should be able to declare anybody else’s marriage null and void.

The new legislation that we are seeking to agree will have no effect on the validity of the marriage, but it means that the person will be removed from the succession. That matters because throughout the whole history of English Parliaments, Scottish Parliaments and Irish Parliaments, the succession has always been determined by Parliament, not the monarch. Parliament decided what should happen at the deposition of Edward II. In the case of Richard II, the decision was made by the shortest Parliament in our history—a one-day Parliament in Westminster Hall gathered by Henry Bolingbroke. One could argue that it was not a proper Parliament because Richard II was not present, but none the less the Commons, the Lords and the Church, gathered together, made the decision on who should be the new monarch.

[Michael Ellis]

May I suggest that Parliament will still make the decision, because it could intercede and put someone back in the line of succession if they had been excluded for this reason?

[Chris Bryant]

That is not in the Bill. Indeed, the Government have said that it is entirely a matter for the Crown, in the double sense of the monarch and the monarch’s Ministers, who might have a role in advising the monarch.

Incidentally, I would not want to be a monarch apart from Elizabeth with a “II” in my title, but when James II was removed, Parliament decided, through the Bill of Rights and then the Act of Settlement, to hand over a joint monarchy to William and Mary rather than to anybody else. Then, when the Stuart line was going to end with Queen Anne, Parliament decided how the succession should proceed. Again, when Edward VIII tried to abdicate in 1936, the abdication could be allowed only because there was a statute of Parliament the next day.