Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
Debate between Chris Bryant and Rachael Maskell(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
I spoke earlier, so I need to be sure that the House is happy for me to speak again. I am not going to speak at great length. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I have united the House twice today. That is a great comfort to me.
First of all, may I commend the Liberal Democrats on the debate that they have held and on bringing this issue to us? Members on both sides of the House have made very powerful speeches, including my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara), for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). I appreciate that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), is not able to be here; he sent me a kind note to explain why.
As I said right at the beginning of my opening speech, it is the Government’s intention to comply with the motion as soon as is practicable and possible within the law. As I have said from the beginning, my only caveat is that my Department and the whole of Government will work towards maximum transparency and timeliness, but I have to say that where documents may speak materially to the offence of misconduct in public office or any other offence that may be considered by the police, we will have to follow the advice of the prosecuting authorities. I do not think anybody disagrees with that. It is a different point from some of the other points that have been raised in relation to other humble addresses, but I think it is an important one.
I hear the calls that have been made by several hon. Members for a public inquiry. One of the other things in which I was engaged in 2011 was a big row about phone hacking at the News of the World, and we demanded a public inquiry. We ended up with a two-part public inquiry, and the second part was not going to happen until the police had completed their investigations. Of course, it never happened, because so much time had elapsed, so I am somewhat cautious about seeking multi-part public inquiries in relation to this issue. I want the police to be able to do their work as effectively as possible.
I will issue another word of caution. I was in the House when Members, understandably, used their privilege to talk about Sir Leon Brittan. It turned out that many of the things that were said at the time were completely and utterly untrue, and people had been misled by somebody. We always have to be cautious about the way we use our privilege in this House, and I will come on to the bigger point about what others have referred to as “negative privilege” in a moment.
We are very keen to work with the prosecuting authorities as fast as possible, but the timetable for that is set by them, not us. We want them to do their job without fear or favour. The one message that we have sent today to the whole of society is that the prosecuting authorities must proceed without fear or favour. Nobody is above the law.
Rachael Maskell
I am really grateful to the Minister for what he has said. Although the prosecuting authorities will clear up the criminal matters, the implications go way beyond that. What thought has the Minister given to how they are dealt with—for instance, the closing of the loopholes around our airports, access into the country, visas, and obviously the privileges held within decision making at the heart of Government?
Chris Bryant
I hear the points that my hon. Friend makes, and of course I sympathise with them. However, it is remarkably difficult to disentangle some of those from possible offences on which prosecutions may be brought, so I am somewhat cautious in this area, as she will hear. She will know that I can sometimes be as vociferous as her on these issues, but at this particular moment I want to be cautious.
I want to talk about the issue of negative privilege, which several Members have mentioned. I fully understand the point, which I myself made back in 2011, when I had a bit of a row with Speaker Bercow about it. I fully understand the point that Members have made, and I do not think we should have excessive deference. Of course, it is a matter for the House, for Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, and for the Procedure Committee and others, whether we want to change the accepted conventions of the House. It is a Back-Bench Committee, and if Members want to take such issues to the Procedure Committee, they should do so.
However, I do not think we should overstate the case, because if at any point any of the political parties had wanted to bring a substantive motion to the House, whether in opposition or in government, anybody would have been able to do so, but the truth of the matter is that all of us chose not to. Whether that is because of deference, I cannot judge, but it is certainly true that using a substantive motion is available to us to consider such matters.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Chris Bryant and Rachael Maskell(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
Both the Under-Secretary of State and I have been remiss in not congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) on her damehood. As you know, Mr Speaker, all knights love to see a dame enter the Chamber. The Under-Secretary of State and I work closely on AI and copyright, and on making sure that we have the AI safety and security that we need. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson makes a fair point and it is one of the things that we are considering at the moment.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
The Chancellor has announced that the Government’s research and development spending plans go through to 2029-30 and that our R&D budget is rising from £13.9 billion in 2025-26 to £15.2 billion in 2029-30—a real-terms increase—and will total £58.5 billion over the spending review period. I am sure that that will benefit my hon. Friend’s York constituency.
Rachael Maskell
York and North Yorkshire is a national leader in the bioeconomy. BioYorkshire will create 4,000 jobs, as well as start-ups and spin-outs. It requires £67 million to build its facilities over the next decade, but it will return £215 million back into the economy. When will the science plan recognise the economic and scientific impact of the research base? Can we have a meeting to talk about the brilliant BioYorkshire project?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is right that it is a brilliant project, and it is precisely the kind of thing the UK excels at: we manage to get the private sector working with Government and local government to deliver not only jobs but real innovation. As the Secretary of State is not here today, I am sure I can offer my hon. Friend the opportunity of a meeting with him.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Chris Bryant and Rachael Maskell(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
We have no plans to introduce additional taxes. I want to get 50 million international visitors coming to the UK, because our tourism industry is an important part of what we do well in this country. That is why I will be hosting the first visitor economy advisory council on Monday morning.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
A tourism levy in York could raise £125,000 through a voluntary scheme, but if there were a comprehensive scheme, £1.7 million could go to my local community. Will the Minister not consider such a scheme so that we can raise that revenue for York?
Chris Bryant
Attacked on both sides in different ways—pushmi-pullyu, I think it was—but my hon. Friend makes a good point. There is of course provision for local mayors and local authorities to be able to introduce similar measures on a voluntary basis, as has already happened in Manchester.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Chris Bryant and Rachael Maskell(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
Copyright and the protection of artists’ moral and economic rights is an absolutely essential part of ensuring that they are properly remunerated for their creativity. We will do everything in our power to make sure that the copyright regime remains, is strong, and is strongly enforced.