Ceasefire in Gaza

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I have said twice already that Mr Speaker set out this morning in detail why he had made his decision, and he will be in his place tomorrow.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No, you will listen to the points of order and listen politely. It looks so bad, on such an important issue—[Interruption.] There is no point in shouting me down now. It looks so bad to our constituents if they see Members who are raising perfectly reasonable points of order just being shouted down. It is not good. I call Sir Chris Bryant.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are perfectly legitimate views, on different sides, as to the propriety of today’s proceedings. However, I just say gently to some Conservative Members who have said that we cannot possibly have an Opposition day motion being amended by another Opposition party that some of the Members who are shouting the loudest—[Interruption.] I just remind some of those who have been shouting the loudest on the Conservative Benches that they personally voted on 13 May 1999 for a Conservative Opposition motion amending a Liberal Democrat motion on an Opposition day.

Far more importantly, surely, is the fact that the behaviour of many hon. Members in the Chamber today will have made a lot of people in this country very nervous about the way we conduct our business when dealing with some of the most important matters of state. Most significantly, it has been the tradition of British parliamentary democracy that if a Government lose control of their foreign policy, they have lost the confidence of the House, by definition, and consequently there is an immediate general election.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order.

Water Pollution: East Durham

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am, exceptionally, going to take a point of order, because I know that the hon. Gentleman has been asked by the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) to correct the record as soon as possible, and that he has given a commitment to do so. I would not normally do this, but I will this time because it is about a speech that was made earlier today.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal, who pointed out to me that I had got something completely wrong in the speech I made earlier. I said that she had presented a ten-minute rule Bill, the Schools (Gender and Parental Rights) Bill, but that was not introduced by her at all; it was in fact introduced by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), who is quite a different matter. I heartily apologise to the right hon. Lady—I am terribly sorry—and I am glad that you have given me the opportunity to do that as swiftly as I could, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I heard the right hon. Lady say that she was grateful that the hon. Gentleman had done this as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 16th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I remind Members that in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair, or Madam Chair, Chair, Madam Chairman or Mr Chairman are also acceptable, so there are lots of options.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

What about Dame Rosie?

[The First Deputy Chairman]

That is my name— I mentioned that.

Clause 2

Safety of the Republic of Rwanda

Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Report stage
Wednesday 29th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

As I am feeling generous, I shall start with the nice bits where we agree with the Government. First, we completely agree with the changes to the Information Commissioner’s Office, strengthening the ICO’s enforcement powers, restructuring the ICO and providing a clearer framework of objectives. As the Minister knows, we have always been keen to strengthen the independence of the ICO and we were concerned that the Government were taking new interventionist powers—that is quite a theme in this Bill—in clause 33, so we welcome Government amendment 45, which achieves a much better balance between democratic oversight and ICO independence, so we thank the Minister for that.

Labour also welcomes part 2 of the Bill, as amended in Committee, establishing a digital verification framework. My concern, however, is that the Government have underestimated the sheer technicality of such an endeavour, hence the last-minute requirement for tens of Government amendments to this part of the Bill, which I note the Minister keeps on referring to as being very technical and therefore best to be debated in another place at another time with officials present. Under Government amendment 52, for example, different rules will be established for different digital verification services, and I am not quite sure whether that will stand the test of the House of Lords.

We warmly welcome and support part 3 of the Bill, which has just been referred to by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and the Minister, and its provisions on smart data. Indeed, we and many industry specialists have been urging the Government to go much faster in this particular area. The potential for introducing smart data schemes is vast, empowering consumers to make financial decisions that better suit them, enabling innovation and delivering better products and services. Most notably, that has already happened in relation to financial services. Many people will not know that that is what they are using when they use a software that is accessing several different bank accounts, but that is what they are doing.

In the autumn statement, the Government pledged to kickstart a smart data big bang. One area where smart data has been most effective is in open finance—it is right that we expand these provisions into new areas to have a greater social impact—but, to quote the Financial Conduct Authority, it should be implemented there

“in a proportionate phased manner, ideally driven by consideration of credible consumer propositions and use-cases.”

Furthermore, the FCA does not think that a big bang approach to open finance is feasible or desirable. Nevertheless, many of the Government amendments to the suite of smart data provisions are technical, and indicate a move in the right direction. In particular, we hope that, with smart data enabling greater access by consumers to information about green options and net zero, we will be able to help the whole of the UK to move towards net zero.

I want to say a few words on part 4, on cookies and nuisance calls. We share a lot of the Government’s intentions on tackling those issues and the births and deaths register. As a former registrar, I would like to see tombstoning—the process of fraudulently adopting for oneself the name of a child who has died—brought to an end. That practice is enabled partly because the deaths register does not actually register the death of an individual named on the births register, which I hope will at some point be possible.

Despite the Government’s having sat on the Bill for almost 18 months, with extensive consultations, drafts, amendments and carry-over motions, there are still big practical holes in these measures that need to be addressed. Labour supports the Government’s ambitions to tackle nuisance calls, which are a blight on people’s lives—we all know that. However, I fear that clause 89, which establishes a duty to notify the ICO of unlawful direct marketing, will make little or no difference without the addition of Labour amendments 7 and 8, which would implement those obligations on electronic communications companies when the guidance from the ICO on their practical application has been clearly established. As the Bill stands, that is little more than wishful thinking.

Unfortunately, the story is the same on tackling cookies. We have a bunch of half-baked measures that simply do not deliver as the public will expect them to and the Government would like them to. We all support reducing cookie fatigue; I am sure that every hon. Member happily clicks “Accept all” whenever cookies comes up—[Interruption.] Well, some Members are much more assiduous than I am in that regard. But the wise Members of the House know perfectly well that the problem is that it undermines the whole purpose of cookies. We all support tackling it because clicking a new cookie banner every time we load a web page is a waste of everybody’s time and is deeply annoying.

However, the Government’s proposed regulation 6B gives the Secretary of State a blank cheque to make provisions as they see fit, without proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is why we are unhappy with it and have tabled amendment 6, which would remove those powers from the Bill as they are simply not ready to enter the statute book. Yet again I make the point that the Bill repeatedly and regularly gives new powers to the Secretary of State. Sure, they would be implemented by secondary legislation—but as we all know, secondary legislation is unamendable and therefore subject to much less scrutiny. These are areas in which the state is taking significant powers over the public and private individuals.

Let me deal with some of the Labour party’s amendments. First, I take subject access requests. The Government have repeatedly been in the wrong place on those, I am afraid, ever since the introduction of the first iteration of the DPDI Bill under Nadine Dorries, when they tried to charge people for access to their own data. Fortunately, that has now gone the way of Nadine Dorries. [Interruption.] I note that the Minister smiled at that point. We still have concerns about the Government’s plans to change the thresholds for refusing subject access requests from “manifestly unfounded or excessive” to “vexatious or excessive”. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, Reset, the TUC and Which? have all outlined their opposition to the change, which threatens to hollow out what the Government themselves admit is a “critical transparency mechanism”.

We have tabled two simple amendments. Amendment 2 would establish an obligation on any data controller refusing a subject access request to provide evidence of why a request has been considered vexatious or excessive. Organisations should not be allowed to just declare that a request is vexatious or excessive and so ascribe a motive to the data subject in order to refuse to provide their data, perhaps simply because of the inconvenience to the organisation.

The Government will try to tell me that safeguards are in place and that the data subject can make appropriate complaints to the organisation and the ICO if they believe that their request has been wrongly refused. But if we take the provisions set out in clause 9 to extend the time limits on subject access requests, add the advantage for companies of dither and delay when considering procedural complaints, and then add the additional burden on a data subject of having to seek out the ICO and produce evidence and an explanation of their request as well as the alleged misapplication of the vexatious or excessive standard, we see that people could easily be waiting years and years before having the right to access their own data. I cannot believe that, in the end, that is in the interests of good government or that it is really what the Government want.

Despite public opposition to the measures, the Government are also now going further by introducing at this stage amendments that further water down subject access request protections. Government new clauses 7 and 9, which the Minister did not refer to—in fact, he only mentioned, I think, a bare tenth of the amendments he wants us to agree this afternoon—limit a data subject’s entitlement to their own data to the controller’s ability to conduct a “reasonable and proportionate” search. But what is reasonable and proportionate? Who determines what has been a reasonable and proportionate search? The new clauses drive a coach and horses through the rights of people to access their own data and to know who is doing what with their information. That is why Labour does not support the changes.

I come to one of the most important issues for us: high-risk processing, which, as the term suggests, is of most concern when it comes to the rights of individuals. I was pleased but perplexed to see that the Government tabled amendments to new clause 30 that added further clarity about the changed provisions to record keeping for the purposes of high-risk processing. I was pleased because it is right that safeguards should be in place when data processing is deemed to be of high risk, but I was perplexed because the Government do not define high-risk processing in the Bill—in fact, they have removed the existing standard for high-risk processing from existing GDPR, thereby leaving a legislative lacuna for the ICO to fill in. That should not be up to the ICO. I know that the ICO himself thinks that it should not be up to him, but a matter for primary legislation.

Our amendment 1 retains a statutory definition of high-risk processing as recommended by the ICO in his response to the Bill, published in May. He said:

“the detail in Article 35 (3) was a helpful and clear legislative backstop.”

That is why he supports what we are suggesting. Our amendment 4 would also clarify those individual rights even further, by again providing the necessary definition of what constitutes high risk, within the new provisions concerning the responsibilities of senior responsible individuals for data processing set out in clause 15.

I turn to automated decision making, which has the potential to deliver increasingly personalised and efficient services, to increase productivity, and to reduce administrative hurdles. While most of the world is making it harder to make decisions exclusively using ADM, clause 12 in the Bill extends the potential for automated decision making in the UK. Yet countless research projects have shown that automated decision making and machine decision making are not as impartial or blind as they sound. Algorithms can harbour and enhance inbuilt prejudices and injustices. Of course we cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend that the technology will not be implemented or that we can legislate it out of use; we should be smart about ADM and try to unlock its potential while mitigating its potential dangers. Where people’s livelihoods are at risk or where decisions are going to have a significant impact, it is essential that extra protections are in place allowing individuals to contest decisions and secure human review as a fundamental backstop.

Our amendment 5 strikes a better balance by extending the safeguarding provisions to include significant decisions that are based both partly and solely on automated processing; I am very hopeful that the Government will accept our amendment. That means greater safeguards for anybody subject to an automated decision-making process, however that decision is made. It cannot just be a matter of “the computer says no.”

I think the Minister is slightly surprised that we are concerned about democratic engagement, but I will explain. The Bill introduces several changes to electoral practices under the guise of what the Government call “democratic engagement”, most notably through clauses 86 and 87. The former means that any political party or elected representative could engage in direct marketing relying on a soft opt-in procedure, while clause 87 allows the Secretary of State to make any future exemptions and changes to direct marketing rules for the very unspecified purposes of “democratic engagement”.

The Ada Lovelace Institute and the Internet Advertising Bureau have raised concerns about that, and in Committee Labour asked the Minister what the Government had in mind. He rather gave the game away when he wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), to whom I pay tribute for the way she took the Bill through the Committee:

“A future government may want to encourage democratic engagement in the run up to an election by temporarily ‘switching off’ some of the direct marketing rules.”

Switching off the rules ahead of an election—does anyone else smell a rat?

All-party Parliamentary Groups

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) is not giving way.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I am not giving way. It is a courtesy to the House that if you are going to start intervening in a debate, you should have been here for the ministerial openers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am not sure that that is a point of order—it is perhaps an opinion—but I think it is courteous for those who are intervening in a debate to have been here for a long time. My feeling about this is that a lot of different views have been expressed and it is important to have heard the whole debate. I do not think it is unreasonable for the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) to say that the reason he is not allowing an intervention is that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has not been here for the whole of the debate. He is perfectly within his rights to give a reason why he will not take an intervention.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Having said that, I now feel that I have been discourteous and I am going to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I have received no other complaints from hon. and right hon. Members that they do not have a copy. As the hon. Gentleman says, he has not been here for the whole debate, so he has not heard a lot of the other arguments. It is a bit discourteous to keep disrupting the debate in this way. We should allow the Chair of the Standards Committee to finish his speech without interruption through points of order, which is a poor approach when we are having a debate. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is on the Panel of Chairs, so I hope he would understand.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I will come on to the Panel of Chairs a little later.

I rather enjoyed that point of order, because I think the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is complaining that he has a copy of the relevant document that he wanted.

APPGs are great, but we have too many. There is a great deal of duplication, and I suspect we are all guilty. Many of us end up creating another new APPG on another new medical condition that is somewhat similar to other APPGs, and so on. Colleagues are often a bit naughty in trying to make every APPG publication look remarkably like a Select Committee report, knowing perfectly well that, when it is referred to on the “Today” programme or on ITV, the APPG will be referred to almost identically as a “Committee of MPs,” which is unfortunate because we should rigorously protect the authority of Select Committees and official communications of the whole House.

As I said earlier, I sometimes feel that APPGs are the soft underbelly of the way we do parliamentary lobbying. One Member, who I am not naming—I do not even know who it is—is an officer of 88 all-party parliamentary groups, and I do not think they could possibly do due diligence on all 88 groups.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I am not giving way again. I am really sorry, but I have been trying to leave the stage for some time.

This is the next scandal coming down the line. I know that the vast majority of Members want to address the matter. We cannot possibly do so if we remain with 762 all-party parliamentary groups. That is more than there are Members of this House. It is almost as many Members as there are in the other place. If a group cannot get five people to an AGM, it probably is not really an APPG and should not have the imprimatur that the APPG title guarantees it. I urge the House to support these measures today. Actually, the authority is vested in the Committee; it does not need to be agreed to by the House, but we thought that it was best for the House to be able to take a view as well.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Father of the House.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have notified the Immigration Minister of this point of order and, in fact, we have just had a conversation about it, so he knows very well what point I am about to raise.

On 19 December, the Immigration Minister told the House that the backlog of asylum cases

“was 450,000 when the last Labour Government handed over to us.”——[Official Report, 19 December 2022; Vol. 725, c. 8.]

However, the UK Statistics Authority has written to both the Minister and the Prime Minister to say that that is not true, and that they should correct the record.

I have been trying to get to the bottom of this ever since, so I have written two letters to the Minister and tabled two parliamentary questions. To be fair to the Minister, he has responded remarkably quickly. In the first parliamentary question, I asked

“how many asylum applications were awaiting processing in (a) June 2010 and (b) December 2022.”

The Minister replied not with a direct answer, but with a reference to a lengthy dataset. It did include a figure for December 2022—166,261—but did not include one for 2010. I therefore tabled another question, asking

“how many asylum applications were awaiting processing in June 2010”,

which was when the Labour Government handed over to the Conservatives. Again, the Minister replied not with a direct answer but with a reference to the same dataset, which provides 543 separate lines listing asylum backlogs from different countries in 2010. Fortunately, I got an A in O-level maths, so I added up the backlogs in the 543 lines, and the total came to 18,954, so that would be the correct figure for 2010, not 450,000, as the Minister had said.

Earlier this year, Madam Deputy Speaker, you yourself ruled that when Ministers reply, not only should they do so swiftly and fully but, ideally, their answers should be free-standing. The Minister’s answers in this instance were not free-standing, and I had to do my own maths on his behalf. Can you confirm, therefore, that Ministers should not attempt to obfuscate in their responses, but should answer the question as directly as possible? I know the Minister would want to make sure that the House has the most accurate information possible.

Can you also explain to the Minister, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to any other Ministers who might be interested, that there is a formal process whereby Ministers—not Back Benchers; only Ministers—can correct the record? That would mean correcting the original statement in Hansard. Will you explain what that process is, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will the Minister now finally admit that the figure for June 2010 was not 450,000, as he said, but 18,954?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. He has given me a lot of tasks to undertake.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, Ministers, rather than the Chair, are responsible for answers. However, I would of course always expect Ministers to provide answers that are as informative and helpful as possible, and I know that Mr Speaker would also expect Ministers to correct the record if an error is made in an answer. The Minister is here, and he will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. He may wish to take it away, or he may wish to respond immediately.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Go on!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

If the Minister does not wish to respond, I should just add that the Procedure Committee reviews the performance of Departments in providing answers, so the hon. Gentleman may wish to make his views clear to that Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman indicates that he has read the letter. I am happy to read out a portion of it for your benefit, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, and perhaps, with the hon. Gentleman’s consent, I may put a copy in the Library of the House, which is what I did with my previous letter to him.

In the letter, I wrote:

“I clarified my remarks on the floor of the House in the debate on Illegal Migration Bill on 27 March and”—

in the letter that I had sent to the hon. Gentleman and placed in the Library—

“I expanded on that clarification in writing”.

The point that I was trying to make in the debate, which I appreciate is different from what the hon. Gentleman believes, is this. As I said in my letter,

“With regards to the backlog of 450,000 asylum cases—this is the assessment of the then-independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, as reported by the BBC and the Guardian. Iusb therefore believe it is a perfectly legitimate figure to quote, as then-Home Secretary John Reid did in the House of Commons on 19 July 2006.”

I hope that that clarifies the matter and corrects the record to your satisfaction, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Minister for responding at the Dispatch Box. It is obviously not for me to rule on different interpretations of statistics—

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Go on!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No, I will not, but I am sure that this debate will continue elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman may well wish to respond to the Minister’s letter, but I think at this point we should leave it at that.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Thank you. It is my area, too.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The register of Ministers’ interests says that the right hon. Lady is the Minister of State at the Department for International Trade, but she is self-evidently the Leader of the House, and has been for 205 days. Indeed, the Department for International Trade was abolished 51 days ago. The register is not even an accurate list of Ministers now. No Department has published transparency returns on anything after the end of September, so it has been 180 days. An ordinary MP would have to register everything within 28 days.

The Leader of the House has been saying for some time that she will get this sorted—she promised the House before Christmas. So far as I can see, we are going in the wrong direction, not the right direction. Why can we not have Ministers’ interests published within a week or a fortnight of their being incurred? Why can we not have it done immediately?

Prayers

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Friday 24th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hate to bring to the beginning of the day something that comes at the end of the day, but as you know my private Member’s Seizure of Russian State Assets and Support for Ukraine Bill could be up for its Second Reading later. As I understand it, the Government, although they have perhaps not made a final decision on this, are toying with objecting to the Bill; if a single person objects, it will not go forward to its Second Reading today.

Everybody knows that the whole House stands completely united behind Ukraine and is fully in support of making sure that Putin fails in his mission to seize it. I gather that the Government’s briefing to the press overnight was that they might object because it is not suitable for such a measure to be introduced in a private Member’s Bill, even though it has cross-party support, including from lots of Conservative Members and the Conservative Chairs of two prominent Select Committees.

Madam Deputy Speaker, would you clarify that the Bill is perfectly in order—otherwise it would not be on the Order Paper; that in the past many very significant issues have been introduced through private Members’ Bills, so there is nothing to preclude this being a matter for such a Bill; that if the Bill were to get Second Reading today, it could be amended many times in Committee, including by Government amendments; and furthermore, that if the Government wanted to, they could of course introduce legislation of their own? My Bill only asks the Government to introduce proposals to seize Russian assets currently frozen in British banks and give them to Ukraine.

As we just heard during prayers, the lamentation over Israel could equally easily be said of Ukraine today. We want to do everything we possibly can as fast as we possibly can to support the people of Ukraine.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I can confirm that his Bill is orderly; otherwise, as he said, it would not be listed on the Order Paper. It is, of course, up to all Members, including Government Members, whether to object to the Bill or not. That is not a matter for the Chair.

I will not comment on the content of the Bill, but the House will have heard the hon. Member’s points; it is true that it could be amended in Committee. It is not appropriate for me to offer a view about whether a private Member’s Bill is an appropriate vehicle for the hon. Member’s objectives—that is a matter for the House—but I can confirm that such Bills have been used for a variety of purposes, as he described. Obviously, we will wait to see what happens later.

Standards: Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I have heard the argument, “Oh, we go to lots of events that we don’t really enjoy”, but let me put this case to the hon. Member—it is not a real case, but it is a perfectly possible case. Let us say that Formula 1 invited three MPs: the shadow Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Minister; the Minister; and the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The event was at the weekend and the value of the hospitality was about £2,000. The shadow Minister would have to declare it. They might not particularly like Formula 1— They might be going because it is part of their work in that role. I personally cannot imagine anything worse than going to a Formula 1 event—[Interruption.] I can see that the hon. Gentleman agrees.

The Chair of the Select Committee would also have to register the Formula 1 weekend. They would have to register who had paid for it and how much it was worth, which is an important part of judging whether it might be of such a scale that it could influence a person’s decision making. Furthermore, those two people would not then subsequently be able to lobby on behalf of Formula 1. That is a really important part of the rules of the House. However, the Minister merely tells the permanent secretary that they have been on this weekend and does not register the value, and it appears many months later, even though the Minister might be the person who is making executive decisions that affect Formula 1. That is our fundamental problem.

What we have at the moment is a lesser degree of transparency and openness for Ministers who make decisions than for Back Benchers who do not make decisions. The Leader of the House has been very helpful on many of these issues and I do not have a big beef with her, although she is still yet to visit the Rhondda tunnel, but if I am honest, her arguments sounded a bit like Augustine of Hippo saying, “Make me chaste and continent, but not yet.”

There is no reason why we cannot do this. I have heard Ministers promise many things over the years—indeed, I might have promised a couple of things that never came to pass myself when I was a Minister. The easiest way for the House and for Parliament to deal with this is to go back now to the system that we used to have, then if the Government come back to us in six months’ time having sorted out ministerial transparency, they can have the exemption back. All MPs should be treated equally under the rules, just as every member of our society should be treated equally under the law, and that is why I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support the two amendments I have tabled.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I do not wish to curb debate at all, but this debate has to finish in about 40 minutes and I want to give the Leader of the House a good amount of time to respond. I ask colleagues to bear that in mind.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (Appointment)

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Daniel Greenberg is quite phenomenal; my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) knows him from his advice to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. He has advised the Standards Committee several times, and done so with considerable wit, rapier intelligence and sometimes rather frighteningly.

More importantly—I do not think that I am breaking a confidence—we were advised by those who did the initial interviews that he might be a little shy about providing his opinions. I do not think that is the issue at all. He was absolutely magnificent at interview; I was giving him 10 out of 10 on every single one of the key criteria on experiences and abilities needed to fulfil the role. I am certain that he will do a splendid job for the House.

I do, however, want the House to embrace the appointment. Part of what I said earlier about upholding the standards of the House and maintaining its reputation for future generations involves not attacking those whom we have entrusted with managing that job. Sometimes, he may need additional financial and staffing resources to be able to do the job properly.

I pay tribute to Kathryn Stone for the magnificent way in which she has done her job—I hope that we will have an opportunity to do that properly before she departs later in the year—and the phenomenal members of her team. In particular, I have worked closely with Helen Reid, who is clear, concise and fair. Kathryn has managed to create a team that I think she will hand on in very good nick to Daniel Greenberg when he starts on 1 January.

There is just one area where I hope that Daniel will be able to work clearly. I have some sneaking concerns about the operation of the ICGS. Sometimes, the quality of people who have been employed to do the early investigations has not been up to scratch. Because the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has a sideline to that role, it is important that Daniel can work closely with whoever will be running the ICGS in future. Having said all of that, Daniel is a magnificent appointment and I am glad that the Commission has agreed with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and myself.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Deputy Leader of the House.

Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Monday 18th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

First of all, that is not a point of order. Secondly, Mr Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means and I have all said that we should try to conduct this debate in reasonable terms. I think we all need to calm down and discuss the important matters before the House. I call Chris Bryant.

[Chris Bryant]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

No, I don’t have confidence in this Government, because they play fast and loose with numbers. They boast that they are recruiting 20,000 more police, but they cut police numbers by 20,000. They boast of a single tax cut now but forget that they have increased taxes 15 times in two and a half years, giving us the highest tax burden for 70 years. They boast of the covid vaccination as if they personally developed it in the Downing Street kitchen, but France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Singapore have higher vaccination rates than us, and Wales managed it faster than England.

No, I don’t have confidence in this Government, because not even Conservative MPs really have confidence in this Government. They know that this Government are a massive conceit, an organised hypocrisy, a house built on sand—and the fissures run deep. They are not even very good at being Conservatives these days, tearing up conventions and the constitution like student revolutionaries. Of course, that is not how Conservative MPs will vote today. Oh no—they would not dare risk a general election. But even as they troop through the Lobby to indicate that, yes, they do still have confidence in the Government, they will be privately plotting that Government’s demise. They will be making themselves look foolish today. I do not mind that, but they cannot take the British public for fools as well.

Metropolitan Police Service

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I think the right hon. Lady is now having an exchange with the Minister as opposed to Chair, but she has put her request on record. That is up to the Minister; it is not really a matter for me.

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would you have a word with Mr Speaker about this issue, because I believe that exactly the same process happened in another statement last week? The Transport Secretary added a whole load of stuff at the last minute, which was then regurgitated in lots of Back-Bench Conservative Members’ questions, so it was clearly intended long before the statement was made in the House, that a different statement would be made in the House from the one given to the Opposition and, for that matter, that was subsequently circulated around the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. The Minister has just given an assurance that he will ensure that, in future, any last-minute changes are communicated to the Opposition. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will notice what this Minister has said, because I know that Mr Speaker would wish other Ministers to follow that example. I hope that that will be communicated back to other Ministers, and I will ensure that the Speaker is aware of the exchange that has taken place. I think we should now move on.

I thank the Minister for his statement and subsequent comments.

Bills Presented

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order. I have not received any notification that the Government are intending to make a statement on this, and I do not believe that the Speaker’s Office has either. However, I am sure the Treasury Bench will have heard her comment. Obviously, she has also put on record her concern about this issue.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise: there are three parts to this.

On 23 May, I raised a point of order about the failure of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to respond to my correspondence on behalf of my constituent, Mr Brian Price of Treorchy, since I first wrote to the Government on 25 November 2020—not 2021. Eight letters, one parliamentary question and a point of order later, and a month after that, guess what? Still no reply. What can I do?

Likewise, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary making a formal subject access request to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on 8 March of this year. I was told that I would get a formal response within a calendar month. On 20 April, the FCDO wrote to give a new date to respond—20 June. Guess what, Madam Deputy Speaker? Last week, I received this reply:

“We cannot at this stage give you a definitive date of when we will be able to issue our reply.”

But the law requires answers to subject access requests within a calendar month. What can I do?

So far, this month, we have had 42 passport cases in my constituency—and that is just this month—and 16 new passport cases today. My constituents ring and ring and ring, but they get no answer. When my staff ring on their behalf, they often get an answer on the phone, but, again, there is no substantive answer at the end of all of that. What can I do?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving notice of it. Obviously, it is extremely important that Members receive timely answers to their questions. I notice that he referred to the FCDO. The Foreign Secretary is in her place, so I am sure that she will have heard his point and will perhaps make some inquiries as to whether the answer might be forthcoming.

In a more general way, I am sure the Whip is writing down as we speak the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised this point of order about receiving answers to questions. In addition, the hon. Gentleman may like to approach the Procedure Committee, which I understand keeps statistics on the problems that may arise with the answering of questions and publishes a report on them. That may be another route he could take. He knows very well that he could also raise the matter at business questions. I understand his frustration and I reiterate, as I know Mr Speaker would want me to, that it is important that Members get answers to their questions.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I add my congratulations to the Leader of the House on his new role. I know that it was on the tip of his tongue to wish Doncaster good luck in its bid to be the home of Great British Railways; I am sure that it was just the time constraint that prevented him from doing so. Welcome, Leader of the House.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope this is helpful, as it follows on from the earlier questions about the Standards Committee’s current code of conduct review. The consultation ends today, and I know that the Government are close to sending in their own submission. Neither I, nor the Committee, would want any Member of the House to be treated any differently from the public in their submission. Members of the public can make a submission to the consultation online and simply click the box that says, “I would like to remain anonymous”, and that facility is also available to Members.

Alternatively, Members can email me or the Clerk of the Committee. It is helpful for us to know that a submission has come from a Member, but if they wanted to indicate that they would like to remain anonymous, we would undertake to maintain that anonymity when we publish all the responses to the consultation. We really do want to hear everybody’s views as openly as possible. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you can answer that point of order, which was not really a point of order at all.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I was just about to say that I felt that it was more a public service broadcast than a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has obviously passed on the information very effectively.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for notice of his point of order. I have to inform him that I have not had notice of a statement on the matter. I note that Lords amendments to the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill are on today’s Order Paper, hence the presence of the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, so there may be an opportunity to raise relevant matters as part of those proceedings. I accept, however, that that is not the statement that the hon. Member seeks.

Once again, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Member’s request for the matter to be brought before the House soon; as I say, the Northern Ireland Minister is here. I am sure that the hon. Member also knows, as an experienced Member of the House, that there are other ways in which he can raise the issue.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is further to the point of order raised earlier by the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper).

Of course we all understand that all Members are honourable Members. Of course we all understand that occasionally we manage, in the cut and thrust of debate, to say things inaccurately. If, however, we then refuse to correct the record, it is not inadvertent any more; it is advertent. It is deliberate, it is intentional, it is a refusal to correct the record. I fully understand why the Chair does not want to get involved, but the Chair always gets involved if someone then chooses to call that out as an advertent lie. That means, then, that the poor Member who has called out the lie gets thrown out of the Chamber, or is forced to use the word “inadvertent” when we all know perfectly well that the Member does not mean “inadvertent”.

I just wonder how we are going to resolve this in the future. As I understand it, the Procedure Committee is meant to be looking at what we do about accusations of lying in the House, but it feels as if this rule is not going to last forever if we carry on like this, does it not?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As I said before, it has been made very clear from the Chair that if mistakes need to be corrected, they should be corrected as quickly as possible. We have had, I think, three points of order on this now. Again, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the concern and will, I am sure, relay it back. At the moment, however, the hon. Gentleman is painting a hypothetical picture of the future, because, as I have said, if a mistake has been made, it is up to whichever Minister is involved to try to correct that, if they feel—as I have said—that a mistake has been made.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, the Procedure Committee is looking at this issue in the round, and, obviously, it is something on which right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House might wish to give evidence to the Committee.

Business without Debate

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. As I understand it, if a request comes during the debate, it may be possible to suspend the House and take a statement, but once the question has been put and the House is adjourned, it is not possible to have a statement tonight. If the hon. Gentleman recalls, at the end of the debate, the question is put about the House adjourning and that is the final decision on when it is adjourned.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since we are doing hypotheticals, I wonder if we could elaborate a bit more. Obviously, we would all prefer a proper process where the Gray report is published in full and given to the public as soon as possible after the Prime Minister receives it. I think the House would also prefer an opportunity to be able to question the Prime Minister on it, and the Prime Minister himself has very generously said that he would come to the House, but we do need a decent amount of time between publication and the House being able to consider it. I just wonder what your thoughts are, Madam Deputy Speaker. It looks as if tomorrow may be difficult for us to have a statement. It is theoretically possible that we could have a statement on Friday, but would that not be rather inappropriate considering that the vast majority of Members do not anticipate being here on a Friday because they have constituency business?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. As I say, we have received no indication that a statement is to be made. My instinct would be that Mr Speaker would want any statements to be at a time when those Members who are interested in the statement were able to be here and participate. I think it is probably best if I just leave it at that.

Code of Conduct: Consultation

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I think that the questions asked thus far have made it evident that we need a full debate so that people can make speeches. The sooner we have that in the new year the better, and I will listen to all the comments people make.

I have lots of views about the ministerial code, but it is not the business of our Committee to have views about the ministerial code. That is a matter for another Committee, and we have touched on it only tangentially. As it happens, however, it does seem odd to me that a series of actions by a Member could get them taken through the ICGS process for bullying, but if done as a Minister within their Department would lead to no sanction whatsoever. In the end, I think that brings the whole of politics into disrepute. However, as I say, that is not a matter for the code of conduct. We are only interested in regulating Members’ performance in their duties as Members.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I reiterate that these are supposed to be fairly short, concise questions, including from the Front Bench. Debates will come later.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

2nd reading
Monday 14th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

As I have said, the hon. Lady can rest assured that Mr Speaker will have made his views very clear. I am not aware of any discussions that have taken place, but I think we would know if the Prime Minister were shortly to arrive here. Instead, I suspect that the Secretary of State will make a statement at 8.30.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is somewhat different. It relates to the fact that if the Government are extending the provisions in England in relation to the restrictions on people’s freedom because of covid beyond 21 June, that is also the date when matters change as to how we do our business here in Parliament.

It is actually quite difficult to get a rail ticket from Wales to London because of covid restrictions on trains. People have to book some time in advance. I just wonder when there will be a busines statement that will lay out exactly how we will be doing our business in a week’s time. There are perfectly sensible measures that could be put in place very quickly; I am sure that we would all want to assist in that, but it is important to get these things right. Sometimes, when the Government rush them or do not consult on them, we end up having to tidy them up afterwards.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I suspect that the shadow Leader of the House will be having discussions with the Leader of House about that issue, and it may be something that comes forward in a business statement at some point.

I am suspending the House until 8.30 pm.

Point of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. He is right to state that on 21 April the House endorsed the recommendations of the Committee on Standards, which included a recommendation that the commissioner should have authority to publish a list of non-independent complaints and grievance scheme investigations, returning the situation to that before 19 July 2018.

The right hon. Gentleman is also correct that the process endorsed by the House contains a provision in some circumstances for a rebuttal to be issued, but that the wording of any such rebuttal requires the approval of the commissioner. The Committee’s deliberations on the report and the advice taken are a matter for the Committee, not for me or the Speaker. As the House has endorsed the process we are discussing, it is also not for me to comment on the right hon. Gentleman’s criticisms of it. However, he has put his views on the record and he might wish to pursue the issues he has raised with the Committee itself.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to be helpful to the House on this point, and I have already had a private conversation with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) about this. The Committee on Standards will obviously consider the matter that he has already raised. I am absolutely clear in my mind, and I am sure the Committee is, both that the commissioner was granted the power to do this by the House—indeed, was required by the House to do this, in returning to the situation that existed before July 2018—and, even more importantly, that the Committee will always consider every single instance that comes before us on an entirely impartial basis, so as to secure justice and fairness for every single Member of this House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Chair of the Committee for that clarification and suggest that we now move on.

Bills Presented

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Order No. 80A)

Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Matt Hancock, Secretary Oliver Dowden, Secretary Ben Wallace, Secretary Grant Shapps and Amanda Solloway, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the establishment of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency.

Bill read the First and Second time without Question put (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 23 March); to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 1) with explanatory notes (Bill 1-EN).

Armed Forces Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Order No. 80A)

Secretary Ben Wallace, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Priti Patel, Secretary Brandon Lewis, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary Simon Hart and the Attorney General, presented a Bill to continue the Armed Forces Act 2006; to amend that Act and other enactments relating to the armed forces; to make provision about service in the reserve forces; to make provision about pardons for certain abolished service offences; to make provision about war pensions; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First and Second time without Question put, and stood committed (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 8 February); to be printed (Bill 2) with explanatory notes (Bill 2-EN).

Environment Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Order No. 80A)

Secretary George Eustice, supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Michael Gove, Alok Sharma, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Secretary Robert Jenrick, Secretary Grant Shapps, Secretary Brandon Lewis, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary Simon Hart and Rebecca Pow, presented a Bill to make provision about targets, plans and policies for improving the natural environment; for statements and reports about environmental protection; for the Office for Environmental Protection; about waste and resource efficiency; about air quality; for the recall of products that fail to meet environmental standards; about water; about nature and biodiversity; for conservation covenants; about the regulation of chemicals; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First and Second time without Question put (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 26 January); to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 3) with explanatory notes (Bill 3-EN).

Finance Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Order No. 80B)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Prime Minister, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Secretary Thérèse Coffey, Secretary Robert Jenrick, Secretary Oliver Dowden, Steve Barclay, Jesse Norman, John Glen and Kemi Badenoch, presented a Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the national debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance.

Bill read the First and Second time without Question put (Standing Order No. 80B and Order, 13 April); to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 4) with explanatory notes (Bill 4-EN).

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Order No. 80A)

Secretary Robert Buckland, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Priti Patel, Secretary Grant Shapps, Secretary Oliver Dowden, the Attorney General, Victoria Atkins and Chris Philp, presented a Bill to make provision about the police and other emergency workers; to make provision about collaboration between authorities to prevent and reduce serious violence; to make provision about offensive weapons homicide reviews; to make provision for new offences and for the modification of existing offences; to make provision about the powers of the police and other authorities for the purposes of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting crime or investigating other matters; to make provision about the maintenance of public order; to make provision about the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles; to make provision in connection with driving offences; to make provision about cautions; to make provision about bail and remand; to make provision about sentencing, detention, release, management and rehabilitation of offenders; to make provision about secure 16 to 19 Academies; to make provision for and in connection with procedures before courts and tribunals; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First and Second time without Question put, and stood committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 16 March); to be printed (Bill 5) with explanatory notes (Bill 5-EN).

Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Presentation and resumption of proceedings (Standing Order No. 80A)

Matt Warman, supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Dominic Raab, Secretary Priti Patel, Michael Gove and Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, presented a Bill to make provision about the security of public electronic communications networks and public electronic communications services.

Bill read the First and Second time without Question put (Standing Order No. 80A and Order, 30 November); to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 6) with explanatory notes (Bill 6-EN).

Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Brandon Lewis, supported by the Prime Minister, Michael Gove, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary Simon Hart and Robin Walker, presented a Bill to make provision about Ministerial appointments, extraordinary Assembly elections, the Ministerial Code of Conduct and petitions of concern in Northern Ireland.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 7) with explanatory notes (Bill 7-EN).

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Michael Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Robert Buckland, Steve Barclay, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Mark Spencer, the Attorney General and Chloe Smith, presented a Bill to make provision about the dissolution and calling of Parliament, including provision for the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 8) with explanatory notes (Bill 8-EN).

Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Glen, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Thérèse Coffey, Guy Opperman, Steve Barclay, Jesse Norman and Kemi Badenoch, presented a Bill to provide for the payment out of money provided by Parliament of expenditure incurred by the Treasury for, or in connection with, the payment of compensation to customers of London Capital & Finance plc; provide for the making of loans to the Board of the Pension Protection Fund for the purposes of its fraud compensation functions; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 9) with explanatory notes (Bill 9-EN).

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Ben Wallace, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Secretary Elizabeth Truss, Steve Barclay, Jesse Norman, John Glen and Kemi Badenoch, presented a Bill to make provision in relation to national insurance contributions.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 10) with explanatory notes (Bill 10-EN).

Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Robert Jenrick, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Michael Gove, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Jesse Norman, Paul Scully and Luke Hall, presented a Bill to make provision about matters attributable to coronavirus that may not be taken account of in making certain determinations for the purposes of non-domestic rating; and to make provision in connection with the disqualification of directors of companies that are dissolved without becoming insolvent.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 11) with explanatory notes (Bill 11-EN).

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Gavin Williamson, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Dominic Raab, Secretary Priti Patel, Michael Gove, Secretary Robert Buckland, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Secretary Oliver Dowden and Michelle Donelan, presented a Bill to make provision in relation to freedom of speech and academic freedom in higher education institutions and in students’ unions; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 12) with explanatory notes (Bill 12-EN).

Exiting the European Union

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is the Minister’s right, but she has given an undertaking that she will respond at the end to the points raised, so we will leave it at that.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not sure that I have ever heard such a cursory explanation of a statutory instrument in the Chamber. The whole point of Ministers coming to the House, rather than doing statutory instruments elsewhere, is that they give a full and proper explanation of the legislation that they are advancing. Is there any way in which we can make sure that the Minister provides a full and proper explanation of why this statutory instrument is necessary?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I think we need to move on. The Minister has undertaken to come back at the end. I am sure she will have heard the points made by Members in the Chamber. I am sure she will come back at the end and perhaps respond to some of the points that have been made. I really would like to move on at this point.

Business without Debate

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We now come to motion 8 on virtual participation in substantive proceedings. The Speaker selected a manuscript amendment to the motion. Amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is as follows:

Line 5, leave out from “Members” to “to” in line 8 and insert “with a public health reason relating to the pandemic”.

Under the established practice of the House, a selected amendment to a motion that cannot be proceeded with after the moment of interruption constitutes an objection, so the motion cannot be taken.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, the provision that we have in this House is that some things go through after the moment of interruption, so after 7 o’clock tonight or after 5 o’clock tomorrow night, on “nod or nothing”. The whole point of “nod or nothing” is exactly what it says on the tin—that if the whole House agrees, then the motion can go forward, but if one Member objects because the motion is not consensual, then it cannot go forward.

I tabled the amendment today after consultation with quite a lot of other Members on both sides of the House, including several Select Committee Chairs, several of whom went to meet the Government to discuss this earlier today, and following on from the debate that we had on Monday afternoon on the urgent question by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). I think I am right in saying that every single Member who spoke argued for a more generous system that would allow Members who either have to self-isolate for themselves, or are shielding to protect other people in their family or for some other public health reason, should be allowed to participate fully in debates, including on legislation. I do not think that many in the House disagreed with that proposition.

The Leader of the House said on Monday that he was coming forward with a motion. The motion was tabled late last night without being notified to the Opposition or any of the Members concerned, which is very unusual. The motion is on the Order Paper this evening. We were not able to table any amendments or have any consultation on this whatsoever. That is why I have tabled the amendment, which means that it cannot go forward tonight.

I understand from the Table Office that the Government have already said that they will table exactly the same measure tomorrow. I just do not think that this is treating the House with respect. The honest truth is that there should be no distinction between different Members. Lots of people have lots of different reasons why they would want to take part in debates. What I hope you will be able to confirm, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that if we go through this whole rigmarole again tomorrow—the Government table exactly the same motion, and I table exactly the same amendment, which I can assure you I will—then the motion will again fall tomorrow.

I think the House wants us to be able to progress this. There are two ways in which we could do that that would meet the House’s needs. The first is that the Government say, “Let’s have a debate” and we have a vote on an amendable motion, and the House can decide. There are arguments on both sides, I accept, so let us have that debate if that is what the Government want. Alternatively, the Government table tonight—and they have until the close of play tonight—an amended motion that does not require individual Members to have to go to a GP to get a certificate to say that they are shielding so that they can then take part in debates, but actually allows MPs to be grown-ups, to make their own decisions and to take part on behalf of their constituents.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for that point of order. First, I can confirm that if a motion is tabled for tomorrow night at five o’clock and if the hon. Member were to table an amendment and the Speaker were to accept it, the same process would be followed as has taken place tonight. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the comments of the hon. Member and will feed that back to the Leader of the House. Of course, it is business questions tomorrow, where this may be something that gets raised again.

Point of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, I chair the Standards and Privileges Committees. We have seven lay members on the Committee on Standards, but we have had a gap of two for the last few months. As I understand it, the House of Commons Commission has approved two names. I was really hopeful that we would be able to have them on the Order Paper for Monday so that the new members would be able to join the Committee—we have a lot of work to do this autumn—on Tuesday.

I also wonder where we have got to with the independent expert panel. The Commission said that that would be appointed by September. There are cases waiting. This is a really important part of the work that the House does; it is about making sure that there is confidence in the standards system. I just wonder whether we are going to have the independent expert panel up and running soon to deal with sexual harassment and bullying cases.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I know that both matters are going ahead as quickly as possible, but I will certainly make further inquiries as to when exactly the announcements may be made and come back to him, whether personally or in writing. We will certainly take it away. There are three members of the Commission here, so they will have heard his representations.

The House is suspended for three minutes.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order; there were a lot of questions in there and I will do my best to respond. Obviously, I cannot answer on what discussions the Speaker has or has not had with members of the Government. I should also say that the Chair is not responsible for Government responses to the reports produced by her Committee, although, obviously, I hope that those responses will be forthcoming—I am sure those on the Treasury Bench will have heard that. I can confirm that the current scheme for proxy voting expires in July 2020 and that, as I am sure she will appreciate, the whole House will be interested in hearing the Procedure Committee’s expert views on the scheme. I know that her Committee has made a great many contributions to the debate so far, which have been extremely helpful. I am sure she knows that the Speaker has taken a very close interest in ensuring that voting in this House is carried out effectively, but that key to his response has been that it has due regard to the safety of hon. Members and of staff—I can assure her that he will continue to do this. As for a meeting between herself, the Leader of the House and the Speaker, I am sure the Speaker will respond positively to the requests she makes, as I know he has fairly regular meetings with her in any case.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is sort of tangential but allied to the former point of order. You will know that yesterday the Leader of the House committed to the Chair of the Procedure Committee that he would be introducing a motion today to deal with allowing some Members to participate in questions, statements and urgent questions remotely. That was tabled late last night, since which time amendments have been tabled. As I understand it, Mr Speaker is minded to select three of those amendments—four are being tabled but three have been selected. That means, in practice, that if we were to suggest that we were going to push those to a vote, this would be opposed business and so if we reached 7 pm—you will tell me if I have got this wrong, Madam Deputy Speaker—without having started the debate, it could not then be taken as it is opposed business.

I also note, further to what the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) just said, that since the Prime Minister has now made a further commitment today, it might be more sensible if we were to have a new motion tomorrow that covered all these matters in the round. We could then debate it properly, rather than having it shoved through at the end of the day by surreptitious means without the Government allowing any time for debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has painted a scene of something that might happen at the end of the day, which I obviously cannot predict at this point because we do not know whether the business will run until 7 pm. However, not for the first time, he is correct—in saying that the motion cannot proceed after 7 pm if it is objected to. In the current circumstances, an amendment standing on the Order Paper that has been provisionally selected and not withdrawn, and is likely to be contested, would constitute an objection, and he is right that it cannot be taken after 7 pm.

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will have another go, very briefly—just to say that I will be contesting this at 7 o’clock, in case there was any doubt.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point. I thought that that might be the case, but it is best to have it on the record.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and Rosie Winterton

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is further to what we have just been talking about. Would it not be a good idea if the parliamentary estate were providing leadership to the country on this issue? We have lots of toilets in this building that do not work properly, in which there is no soap, and in which it is difficult to wash our hands properly. Would it not it be a good idea if we led by example? Thousands of members of the public come in here every week and tourists come from all over the world to see this place. Could you use your good offices, Madam Deputy Speaker, not to wander around all the toilets yourself personally, but to make sure that staff understand that this is a very serious and important issue that we need to get right?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. Silver Command meetings are held every day to discuss the situation in Parliament. The House of Commons Commission will be discussing the matter at its next meeting, and Mr Speaker has held meetings with the chief medical officer. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the House authorities take this very seriously, as do the Speaker and the Commission. Any further information will be passed on as soon as it is forthcoming.