Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point with force. It will be recorded in the Official Report and may then, if he so wishes, be more widely disseminated.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am saving up the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am not sure it is a matter for the Chair. I can only say, I think without fear of contradiction, that in my time in this place I have never been pre-programmed, or otherwise, by anyone.

[Chris Bryant]

You used to be quite different from the way you are today.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise a serious point. You rightly referred earlier to today’s Order Paper, which commemorates two Members of this House who were killed in the first world war—that is the right thing for us to do. This short Parliament has seen two members of our community killed: Jo Cox, our colleague, and Keith Palmer, who was defending us. I am sure the whole House would want to add their thanks to those expressed earlier to all the police officers who work on the estate.

Jo Cox will have a shield up in the Chamber by the time the next Parliament gathers. No Parliament can bind its successors, but it seems to me and, I think, to quite a lot of Members on both sides of the House, wholly appropriate that Keith Palmer should also have a shield up in the Chamber. He was not a Member of Parliament, but he was one of us. He was our shield and defender. Surely if there are any voices out there who say that this Chamber should just be for Members, those voices should be rejected. There must be a permanent reminder of what Keith did for us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Very gracious. We have it on the record that the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) was standing and seeking to catch my eye.

[Chris Bryant]

And you didn’t call him.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I did call 35 Members. I will take one further point of order—[Interruption.] Order. We really then ought to proceed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. No, no. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was seeking to take part in an exchange about Ukraine, possibly in anticipation of our not reaching his question. We probably will reach his question, but I am afraid that, whether we do or not, he cannot talk about the travel ban purported to be applied by the United States in respect of an exchange about Ukraine. Does any other Member wish to take part, in an orderly way? Yes: Mr Chris Bryant.

[Chris Bryant]

It is clear that the Russians have behaved perniciously and disgracefully in Ukraine. As the Foreign Secretary has said, their behaviour has led to many deaths, many people have been detained incommunicado, and terrible human rights abuses are going on, as well as the expropriation of assets. The Foreign Secretary regularly boasts about how well we have done in ensuring that there are sanctions in the European Union, but how will we be able to do that when we are no longer a member of the European Union?

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, at 4 o’clock the deadline passed in Northern Ireland. I do not want to make any accusations against the Government, but the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is making a statement elsewhere about what he expects now to happen in Northern Ireland, and I wonder whether you have had any notification of a statement to the House so that the House can express a view.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The short answer is that I have not received any indication that the Secretary of State is minded to come here. From the record of dealing with this Secretary of State—this particular right hon. Gentleman—I can say that he has always been fastidious in wanting to come to the House, often telephoning me and trying to make contact. Indeed, I am advised that he has sought to make contact with me by telephone. I have, however, received no written communication from him at all and no indication of an early statement. I think that one would have been forthcoming anyway, and in the light of my exchange with the hon. Gentleman I feel even more confident that it will be.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Thursday 16th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for raising this important matter.

The Chair has no responsibility for the contents of a document or manual issued by the Cabinet Office. That is its interpretation of the responsibility and advised course of action of Ministers. However, the short answer to the hon. Member for Christchurch, who asked me how Ministers are to be held to commitments that they have made: is by interrogation, by scrutiny, and, potentially, if Members judge it fit and appropriate, by criticism, and hence by potential parliamentary or public obloquy in the event of the breach of a commitment made. That is the answer. There is no binding obligation on any Member to do exactly what he or she has said that he or she will do in addressing the House, just as there is no obligation on any Back Bencher.

That said, making a commitment from the Dispatch Box in response to a question or an intervention is a very serious and solemn matter. It is not something that should be treated lightly or cast aside. Nor is it in any sense acceptable for it to be argued—if it were argued—that there has since been a change in the ministerial team; government is, of course, seamless, and responsibility is collective. That is the situation.

I cannot possibly become involved in exchanges or debate about the future make-up of local government in Dorset. I have enough to contend with in trying to make arguments in relation to the structure of local government in my own county of Buckinghamshire in conversations with Ministers. What I will say, however, and it will doubtless be heard by Ministers, is that I know the hon. Member for Christchurch extremely well. I have known him since 1986, and I have known the hon. Member for Gainsborough since 1997. They are both extremely diligent and serious-minded Members of Parliament. If a Minister thinks that a commitment made can subsequently and lightly be abrogated without parliamentary consequence from Members of their calibre, I think that that Minister is, dare I say it, really rather misguided, as such Minister will probably soon discover. The mechanisms available include debates, and that includes Adjournment debates. So these matters will not go away. It is also open to Members to question Ministers, including very, very senior Ministers, about obligations that have been entered into on behalf of the Government.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will know that in the past the Leader of the House would announce not only next week’s business, but the business for the week after on a provisional basis. I have noticed that for the last few weeks the Leader of the House has been announcing only next week plus one day, normally the Monday. That is proving difficult for Select Committees and other Committees, which have to arrange their business; for ordinary Members, who would like to be able to organise their diaries better, and for those who have commitments in their constituency.

Delightfully, the Leader of the House has just come back into the Chamber, but the Deputy Leader of the House has been present, and he is a very admirable man whom we do not hear enough from in the House. Mr Speaker, will you speak to the Leader of the House, to try and encourage him to give us two weeks of parliamentary business, rather than just one at a time?

[Mr Speaker]

I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, the practice of announcing only the first day of the provisional business for the second week is not unknown; there are many precedents for it, although I certainly accept that the norm is that the House receives two weeks of business, so the hon. Gentleman is broadly correct in what he says.

The second observation I would make is that the Leader of the House has toppled into the Chamber at a most fortuitous time. Whether he has done so because he was excited by the hon. Gentleman’s point of order or because he wants to listen to the Select Committee statements, I do not know. The Leader of the House is perfectly welcome to spring to his feet and come to the Dispatch Box and respond to the hon. Gentleman, as is the Deputy Leader of the House, but notwithstanding the extraordinary temptation to do so, both of them may feel inclined on this occasion to resist—and it appears that they do. But the hon. Gentleman has made his point, and, for what it is worth, I think that if it is possible, it should be done, but it is not always practicable. I hope my response has been helpful.

Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mrs Mary Glindon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the Secretary of State.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

6. When he expects the electrification of the valleys lines to (a) start and (b) be completed.

Jamal al-Harith

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Not on my Benches. In fact, I do not have a Bench but a very comfortable Chair.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Basically, the Prime Minister, when she was Home Secretary, and/or the Justice Secretary, agreed £1 million or thereabouts for a man who went on to commit a significant terrorist act that killed many people. Why the Minister thinks that he can hide behind legal confidentiality and security so as not even to assuage any of the basic concerns that all our voters will have is a mystery to me. The man is dead, for a start, and secondly the Bill of Rights says that no proceeding in Parliament shall be impeached or questioned by any court of law or any other place. The Minister can tell us everything he wants today, if only he had the courage to do so.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When my hon. Friend spoke about a White Paper and a date of publication, the Minister said, from a sedentary position on the Government Front Bench, that the White Paper would be published tomorrow. Is that news for the House?

[Mr Speaker]

It is not news for the House in the sense, if memory serves me correctly, that the Prime Minister indicated as much in the course of Prime Minister’s questions.

[Chris Bryant]

I can’t have been listening.

[Mr Speaker]

If there is one thing I know about the hon. Gentleman, it is that he is invariably listening to his own wisdom. We are grateful to him for that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

One of the biggest infrastructure projects we are about to engage in is the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. Will the Minister make sure that this is part of an industrial strategy for Wales? We do not have enough people in this country to complete the work, and we need academies in every constituency in the land to give young people the skills they need to work in this building.

[Mr Speaker]

The question is certainly part of an ingenuity strategy, on which I congratulate the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Q12. When the Prime Minister introduces a UK agricultural policy because we have left the common agricultural policy, will the Duke of Westminster still receive £407,000 a year, will the Duke of Northumberland still receive £475,000 a year, and will the Earl of Iveagh still receive £915,000 a year from the British taxpayer?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman seems to know a lot about these ducal matters; it is most interesting. I am fascinated by the reply, so let’s hear it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Bryant.

[Chris Bryant]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker—although I recall that you did not wish me a happy birthday, or even call me, on my birthday last week.

[Mr Speaker]

Inexplicably, I was not aware of that great matter at the time.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for that answer from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), but the key thing about the date is that that is when the decant from this building is meant to have started, and there is a series of decisions that knock on one from another. If the Government do not bring forward the motion so we can start debating what is going to happen to the Palace of Westminster, is there not a real danger we will put that project and the public finances at risk?

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Thursday 12th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Well! My cup runneth over. To be complimented by a parliamentarian of the repute of the right hon. Gentleman really does cause me, for the rest of the day, to go about my business with an additional glint in my eye and a spring in my step.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

And two inches taller.

[Mr Speaker]

And possibly two inches taller. I am a happy man indeed. I have always liked the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), in the 20 years I have known him, and I like him even more now.

[Chris Bryant]

Eleanor is not going to call him. [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Gentleman had better watch himself a little bit with the Deputy Speakers in the coming days.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Monday 12th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

One of the great merits of having the Clerk in front of me is that I am on the receiving end of his specialist advice. May I say, for the benefit both of the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who takes an interest in these matters, I know, and of the House, that the letter to which reference was made is strictly speaking a letter to the House and for its benefit? Notwithstanding the motivation of the right hon. Gentleman in saying, “You need not write,” may I with the greatest respect say to the right hon. Gentleman, a distinguished former Minister, that that is not for him to judge—the letter is for the House’s benefit. He may be disinterested in it, but others may be interested. We will leave it there.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

How will we get to see it?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position, “How will we see it?” Toddle along to the Library and you will find it, man.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Thursday 24th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

What is more, if the hon. Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson) wants a debate on the matter—

[Chris Bryant]

You can’t take part.

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot take part, as the hon. Gentleman rightly observes from a sedentary position, but if the hon. Member for Stirling wants an Adjournment debate on the matter, I have a hunch that he might secure it.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Thursday 24th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the Leader of the House. I think it might be helpful, both to the right hon. Member for Gordon, who raised the original point of order, and to all who have subsequently taken part in this brief exchange, if I say the following. Ministers are, of course, responsible for what they say, as are other right hon. and hon. Members. Let me, however, confirm two things. First, the decision as to whether a Bill requires a money resolution is for the Clerk of Legislation, not the Treasury. I understood the meaning of the Leader of the House’s remarks earlier to be to the effect that it was for Treasury Ministers to decide on tabling a money resolution. He may not have said precisely that, but that is what I interpreted as being his meaning, and I confirm that it is, indeed, for them to decide upon the tabling. The question of the requirement is determined, as I have said, by the Clerk of Legislation. I hope that that response helps both distinguished Privy Counsellors in this matter.

[Chris Bryant]

In that case, I just wonder whether the Clerk of Legislation has decided yet whether the Bill needs a money resolution.

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is yes. The Clerk of Legislation has so decided.

[Chris Bryant]

So it is now just for them to tell us.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Wednesday 12th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is, however, very interesting, notably to the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). Because I take an anorakish interest in the pronouncements of each and every Member, it is also of considerable interest to me, so I am very grateful to her for what she has said.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The day would not be complete without a point of order from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you take very seriously your responsibility for protecting the rights of the House. I do not know whether you ever consult Facebook, but if you were to do so, you would find that George Galloway, a former Member of Parliament, still describes himself as a Member of Parliament. Would it not be in the interests of the House to make it absolutely clear to Facebook that he is not a Member of Parliament and should not be claiming that privilege?

[Mr Speaker]

It is not my responsibility, but I am perfectly willing to write. He cannot currently be heard in this place. When he was here, he was heard—fully, sometimes loudly and with very considerable eloquence—but he is no longer a Member of Parliament and I am happy to put that on record. If there continues to be ambiguity, or if misleading impressions are given, they must be corrected.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The BBC is reporting that “Newsnight” believes that the House of Commons Committees on Arms Export Controls are going to recommend that the Government no longer sell arms to Saudi Arabia. I make no bones with that; I rather agree with “Newsnight”, but the point is that it says it is doing this on the basis of having seen a draft report from the Committees. The House has always taken the leaking of draft reports from Committees to the media extremely seriously. I hope, Mr Speaker, that you will have an opportunity to speak to the Committees to establish whether that is the case, and if so, what remedial action the House can take.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. What he says about the seriousness with which leaks of copies, or draft copies, of Select Committee reports are taken is absolutely true. He is quite right about that: it is a very serious matter. I do not know whether there has been such a leak or whether there is merely speculation, but I am happy to make inquiries into the matter, and knowing the dogged and tenacious character of the hon. Gentleman, I have a feeling that if I do not get back to him, he will probably return to it. We will leave it there for now, and I am most grateful for him for the public service that he has done in mentioning it.

Turkey

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I warmly congratulate the Minister on his resurrection in all his glorious diversity. I am glad that he referred to consular staff in particular, because it was only in 2003 that the British consul general in Istanbul was murdered in a terrorist attack there. It has been our long-standing policy to bring Turkey into the European family of nations, whether within the European Union or more broadly through NATO, and to ensure that it faces west as much as, if not more than, it faces east towards Russia and Iran. With our leaving the European Union, how can we ensure that we enhance and strengthen that process of encouraging Turkey and pro-European Turkish politicians to face west?

[Mr Speaker]

On the matter of diversity, the Minister of State and I share shortness.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is not strictly in any procedural sense a matter for the Chair, but it is in one respect because, in common with all colleagues, the Chair believes in democracy and the peaceful exchange of opinion. We are a pluralist society, and if people think that they will get their way through violence, threats and intimidation, they will soon find themselves wrong. If I may say so, no one is more suited to making that point than someone who has served as a democratic parliamentarian for as long as the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Unfortunately, for all sorts of reasons, I was not able to be here for business questions last Thursday, so later I had to read Hansard, which I scoured for announcements regarding next week’s business, particularly for next Monday. On Saturday, I gather that the Prime Minister announced—not to the House or even in this country, but in Poland—that next Monday we will be debating the renewal of Trident. I make no judgment about how people should vote on that, but why has the House still not been formally told that that will be our business next week? Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Defence had the perfect opportunity to make that clear to the House, had he wanted to. On today’s Order Paper, a motion tabled by the Leader of the House states:

“That, at the sitting on Monday 18 July, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the UK’s nuclear deterrent not later than 10.00pm”.

That is a kind of sub-announcement that we will debate the issue next Monday, but we have still had no sign of what the motion will be, whether it will be amendable, and under what terms that debate will be held. Surely it would be more courteous to the House to have a proper supplementary business statement that lays out next Monday’s business.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has the advantage of being right on both counts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I confess I do not know what press offices get up to in these matters, but suffice it to say that ultimately the Secretary of State in a Department is always everywhere and for everything responsible in that Department. We probably should not dwell on this further, but let us try to learn from it for the future.

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I am in a benign and generous mood, so I will allow a further point of order from the hon. Member for Rhondda.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. The point, surely, is that, as things stand, unless the Leader of the House gives a clear statement to the House, Thursday morning will be the first time we will know for certain what next Monday’s business will be, by which time it will be impossible for us to table amendments to the motion that will be taken on Monday, unless you are going to be very generous about the tabling of manuscript amendments and so on. Surely, when we are considering the defence of our nation, it is ludicrous for the Government to indulge in such shenanigans?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is twofold. First, it would be better if there were a supplementary business statement. I would have thought that the terms in which I have answered him make that so clear that the point needs simply to waft from the scholarly cranium of the junior Whip on duty to the powers that be in the relevant Government Department. Secondly, in the absence of any such supplementary business statement, which I really would regard as a considerable discourtesy to the House, the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members can be assured that it will be possible to table amendments on Thursday. I have not thought about the precise chronology of events, but if it is necessary for me to allow manuscript amendments, because of circumstances not of the hon. Gentleman’s devising, they certainly will be allowed, subject only to those amendments, in terms of content, being orderly. I think the Whip has got the message.

Voter Registration

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman’s point of order arises, I believe, directly out of the matters of which the House has just treated, and therefore it is proper to take it now.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. The Minister has said he thinks that emergency legislation will be necessary if we are to deal with the problem now facing us. I think the whole House has said it wants the matter dealt with, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) made clear, the Opposition want to be as helpful as possible. It would be difficult to bring forward legislation and carry it through today. If it is primary legislation, it would have to come to the Floor of the House, so I presume the earliest would be tomorrow. If it is secondary legislation, it would be difficult because a Committee would have to be set up before Monday. It would obviously be better to deal with it tomorrow. My mere suggestion is that if the Leader of the House could come to us later today with a business statement to make it clear what will happen tomorrow, it would be in the best interests of the House and voters, as well as the other House, which will have to deal with the legislation as well.

[Mr Speaker]

I am in the happy position of agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. It is certainly open to the Government to bring forward business tomorrow, and I have a sense that that would be widely anticipated and enthusiastically supported in the House. To have some advance indication from the Government that that is their intention would be useful, and a supplementary business statement would be the ordinary, though not the only, way of providing the information.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Thursday 19th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The Leader of the House has nodded, so we can move on.

Can we also have a statement—another statement—from the Foreign Secretary explaining why he wanted to have General Sir Richard Shirreff court-martialled? Leaving aside the Foreign Secretary’s incompetence for not realising that Shirreff reported to NATO and not to him, surely the general should have been congratulated, not threatened, for stating that slashing troop numbers was a “hell of a gamble”.

I love a bit of dressing up just as much as any other defrocked vicar—almost as much as you, in fact, Mr Speaker—but I did think that yesterday was a case of all fur coat and knickerbockers. There were so many ironies. Her Majesty announced that the Government will legislate for driverless cars and space ports—and arrived in a horse-drawn carriage. She announced that the Government intend to tackle poverty—to a room full of barons and countesses dressed in ermine and tiaras. Even the door handles on the royal coach were decorated with 24 diamonds and 130 sapphires.

The Government also announced that they will put the National Citizen Service, which operates just six weeks a year, on a statutory footing, while the nation’s youth service, which works all year round, has been slashed, losing more than 2,000 youth workers, closing 350 youth centres and cutting 41,000 youth service places between 2012 and 2014 alone. Why not put the youth service on a statutory footing too?

That really is what is so truly awful about yesterday’s Queen’s Speech. It was pretending to be a one nation speech; it was all dressed up as such. It was a candy-floss speech if ever there was one—all air and sugar, whipped up with just a hint of pink in an attempt to make us all believe that compassionate conservatism is still alive. But the truth is that the Chancellor puts a stake through the heart of compassionate conservatism every time he stands at the Dispatch Box.

Yes, let us reform the Prison Service, but we should not dare to pretend that the horrendous state of our prisons—with the rate of suicide, murder and other non-natural deaths at a record high; with daily acts of violence; and with drugs freely available throughout our prisons—has nothing to do with this Government’s assault on the Prison Service budget and the loss of 7,000 prison officers since 2010, largely on the right hon. Gentleman’s watch. Yes, let us improve adoption, but we should not pretend that social services budgets in the poorest local authorities in the land are not now so stretched that children are being put at further risk every single day of the week.

The Government can say until they are blue in the face that they want to tackle some of the deepest social problems in society, but when they have pared public services to the bone, inflicted the toughest cuts on the poorest communities and systematically undermined the very concept of public service, all their blandishments are nothing but a sugar coating for a cyanide pill.

I do not know what time you got up yesterday morning, Mr Speaker, so I am not sure whether you were up early enough to catch the Leader of the House on the “Today” programme, when he tried to defend the former Mayor of London. I particularly loved the assertion, repeated four times, that Boris is a historian and he was making a historian’s comment, as though that somehow meant that he could get away with saying anything he wanted. Where on earth do I start? The former Mayor has a habit of making up so-called historical facts. My favourite was his assertion that King Edward II enjoyed a reign of dissolution with his catamite, Piers Gaveston, at Edward’s recently discovered 14th century palace. I do not doubt that Gaveston liked a bit of royal rumpy-pumpy, but since he was beheaded fully 12 years before the palace was built, it is pretty unlikely that he did so there. My only explanation for that so-called fact from the former Mayor of London is that he was a member of the Piers Gaveston society at Oxford with the Prime Minister, where they got used to porkies.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that if the Leader of the House was doing his business on the “Today” programme between 6 and 7 am, I was almost certainly in the swimming pool at the time. Talking of beheading, the hon. Gentleman is in some danger of beheading himself, because he has already had five minutes. I think he is in his last sentence.

[Chris Bryant]

I am certainly in my last paragraph, Mr Speaker.

Finally, I gather that the Leader of the House is off to the United States of America next week. He is such a close friend and ally of Mr Trump that I am sure Trump tower is preparing the ticker-tape reception for him now. They have a habit in the United States of America of playing appropriate music when important politicians and international statesmen, such as the Leader of the House, appear on stage. The President always gets “Hail to the Chief”. I have had a word with the American ambassador, and I gather that they have got Yakety Sax from “The Benny Hill Show” ready for the Leader of the House.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Thursday 14th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Leader of the House anticipates me, because he will be pleased to know that my short-term memory suffices for me to recall that that was the advice that he proffered to the hon. Lady, or rather the offer that he made to her. My suggestion is that in the first instance the hon. Lady could usefully take up that offer, because I think that it would be worth while meeting Ministers and seeing where she gets. If, after that, she remains dissatisfied, she is welcome to consult me and I will try to advise her on how, through parliamentary routes, she can most time-efficiently—I emphasise time-efficiently—expedite the matter. Let us leave it there for today, but I absolutely understand the sincerity with which she speaks and the sense of urgency that impels her to raise the matter.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there a means by which I can correct the Leader of the House, because he suggested earlier that I was in favour of keeping vellum? A Business Minister tells me that we need to keep vellum because we have been printing statute law on it for 1,000 years. Well, we certainly have not been printing anything for 1,000 years, we have not had statute law for 1,000 years, and we certainly have not been putting it on vellum for 1,000 years. I do not support keeping vellum.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has found his own salvation. In my experience—I have known him for well-nigh 15 years—he almost invariably holds an opinion on every matter that comes before the House, and he usually feels a very intense desire to share that opinion, both with the House and with the wider world. In that objective, he has today undoubtedly succeeded.

Mental Health Taskforce

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I gently remind the House that exchanges in the Chamber are not a private conversation. It is quite important, from the vantage point of those who take a full and complete record of our proceedings, that they can hear what is said.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Sorry?

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you for that helpful interjection from a sedentary position.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have received no approach thus far, as far as I am aware, from any member of the Government asking to make a statement on the matter. The hon. Gentleman may use the Order Paper to pursue his objective. Moreover, if he is so seized of the importance and, perhaps, the urgency of the matter that he wishes to debate it on the Floor of the Chamber, he will be aware of the opportunities that are provided by Adjournment debates. I have a hunch that he will seek to take advantage of those opportunities.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a two-headed point of order, if that is okay. The first refers to the exchanges that we had earlier with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) on Short money. Will you confirm that it is indeed true that the accounting officer for Short money is the Clerk of the House, not the permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office? Has the Clerk of the House therefore been consulted about Short money? Why has the Vote Office—this is still the first head—still not been provided with copies of the consultation, when it pertains directly to the House of Commons?

Secondly, will you confirm, Mr Speaker, that there is a process for Ministers to correct the record when they have inadvertently made a mistake? The Cabinet Office Minister, to my reckoning, made about 18 factual errors. The biggest was when he said that no cut was planned, despite the fact that his document says:

“By contrast… A 19 per cent reduction will take Short money back”.

I do not know what the difference is between a reduction and a cut, but I am sure that there is a means of correcting the record. I wonder whether we can make a special exemption on the number of special advisers for the Minister, because he is making so many mistakes that might be corrected by proper research.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for his point of order. Let me answer his two inquiries. First, I can indeed confirm that in respect of Short money, the accounting officer is the Clerk of the House. On whether the Clerk has been consulted, I am not at all sure. The Clerk is well aware, as I am well aware, of the consideration of policy on this matter. Moreover, I have seen a copy of the consultation document. Beyond that, I would not go.

Secondly, there are any number of opportunities for a Minister, if he or she believes that the record needs to be corrected as a result of an inadvertent misstatement, to correct the record. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, I feel sure that he will look to see the development of events. If he is dissatisfied, I have a hunch that his dissatisfaction will percolate through his contribution at the business question tomorrow.

[Chris Bryant]

Thursday.

[Mr Speaker]

Thursday, I beg your pardon. I am getting ahead of myself. It will be difficult, but we can just about wait for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution at the business question on Thursday. That is not to say that the matter will not be raised before then. I hope that that is helpful for now.

Point of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to go back to the issue of the Second Reading on 22 February of a Bill as yet unannounced. There is no Bill sitting waiting to be finished off in the House of Lords, as a Lords starter, and no Bill that has had a First Reading in this House, as yet, so the only possibility is that the Government fully intend next week, by the time we are back here next Thursday, to have the First Reading of a Commons starter Bill that will then have its Second Reading on 22 February. Would it not be grossly discourteous to this House for the Leader of the House, who knows perfectly well what that Bill is going to be, not to stand up and tell us exactly what it is going to be, because otherwise he will have published it by the time he is back here next week?

[Mr Speaker]

Does the Leader of the House wish to respond?

Under-occupancy Penalty

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Thursday 28th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

But it is out of order.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If it were, I would have ruled thus, and it was not, so I did not—we will leave it at that. I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advice, even if it is proffered from a sedentary position but, in this instance, it suffers from the material disadvantage of being wrong.

Business of the House

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I apologise for the state of my voice, Mr Speaker. I gather that when people heard about that yesterday, several hon. Members rushed to the Table Office to table an early-day motion calling for a national day of celebration.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. One by-product of the hon. Gentleman’s losing his voice is that we can be sure he will not exceed his allotted time of five minutes today. It will be a five brilliant minutes, but I am sure it will not be more.

[Chris Bryant]

Brevity is, of course, something you are yourself used to, Mr Speaker.

What a week it has been! As we debated psychoactive substances in this House, the American Republican campaign seemed to be on psychoactive substances. Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Donald Trump must be the ultimate case of Tweedledum and Tweedledumber. Two Tory MPs have confessed to taking poppers in the Chamber. I do not mean that they actually took the poppers in the Chamber—I do not know whether they did—but they made their confessions in the Chamber. We also learned that the Leader of the House is going to be out-outed by the Work and Pensions Secretary, who is not only an outer as far as the EU is concerned, but so determined to be out that he wants to be out of the two Out campaigns. Talk about two bald men fighting over a comb. As P. G. Wodehouse wrote in “The Small Bachelor”,

“if men were dominoes, he would be the double-blank.”

To be serious, Mr Speaker, may we have a debate about the operation of English votes for English laws? EVEL seems to be descending into farce. Last Thursday, a Committee considered the order abolishing student maintenance grants. You certified the order as an England-only one, yet two Scottish MPs and one Welsh MP were selected to sit on the Committee, in which they voted. That was fair enough, but on Tuesday, when the Labour party ensured that there was a vote of the whole House, two English MPs—the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon)—were excluded from the lists.

I have several complaints. First, last week the Leader of the House said of this measure:

“If it is prayed against, it will not pass without a vote of the whole House”.—[Official Report, 14 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 1002.]

Either he meant that a vote would happen automatically, in which case he does not know the rules of the House and, frankly, he should go and get himself another job, or he meant that he would make sure that the measure was put to a vote of the whole House, in which case we have been sorely disappointed because he did no such thing and, frankly, he should go and get himself another job. Which is it? Does he not know where the Table Office is—it is just out there—or did he never intend to table a motion?

What is particularly bizarre is that because the Government used the negative process and failed to table their own motion, as they had promised, it was virtually impossible for the measure to be defeated. Even if English MPs had wanted the order to be annulled, the whole House could have overruled them because the annulment required a double majority under Standing Order No. 83P. So much for EVEL—it is nothing but an elaborately farcical pretence at democracy and we should get rid of it as fast as possible.

When are we going to have a debate on the Strathclyde report? They have had one in the House of Lords, but we have not had one here. We have seen a dramatic increase in the use of statutory instruments since this Government came to power. They are now churning out 3,043 a year, compared with 1,891 a year under Labour. That is a 60% increase. And they are on more important matters: fracking in national parks, slashing working tax credits and cutting support for poorer students. Surely it is wrong to limit the powers of the Lords in relation to statutory instruments, when 3,000 such measures are being pushed through the Commons on unamendable motions every year.

The latest of these instruments is the Recall of MPs Act 2015 (Recall Petition) Regulations 2016—a very catchy title. This is no minor piece of legislation, as I am sure you are aware, Mr Speaker. It is 174 pages long—nearly three times longer than the original Act. Yet the Government are allowing only a 90-minute debate in Committee on Tuesday. I think that we should have a proper right of recall. That is what I voted for in the last Parliament, rather than the damp squib the Government introduced. Surely such an important measure should be considered by the whole House, line by line.

Next Wednesday is Holocaust Memorial Day. This afternoon, we will have a debate on the memorial day and remember the millions of Jews who were exterminated, the trade unionists, the Roma, the gay men, the so-called asocials, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and, of course, the people with disabilities who were killed under the T4 forced euthanasia programme, which saw 9,722 men and women gassed at the Brandenburg centre in 1940 alone.

But genocide is still happening today. Daesh slaughters Yazidi women and children in Syria and Iraq. In Darfur, the Sudanese Government have been engaged in genocide for more than a decade. I am sure that the Leader of the House would agree that we must always take sides, because looking the other way helps the oppressor, encourages the tormentor and perpetuates the crime.

That brings me to Russia. Sir Robert Owen has delivered his judgment on the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. The Home Secretary will make a statement in few minutes and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) will respond. I fully understand why the Government want to engage with Russia—she is a key player in Iran and Syria—but the one thing we know for certain about the murderous, kleptomaniac regime in Russia is that it walks all over the weak. Putin has no respect for those who let him do what he wants.

On 7 March 2012, this House declared unanimously that it wanted the Government to introduce a Magnitsky Act to ensure that nobody involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky or the corruption that he unveiled was able to enter this country. The USA has such an Act. Is it not time that we made it absolutely clear that Russian murderers are not welcome in this country, and that the likes of Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun may enter the country only if they are prepared to stand trial?

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House has twice now said that the student finance measure, which started consideration in Committee at 11.30 this morning, will automatically be voted on by the whole House, as it will end up appearing on the Remaining Orders of the Day, but that is not the case. I say gently to him that he does not understand the rules. The simple situation is that, because the measure is going through the negative process, unless there is a motion formally tabled and carried in this House that says it shall not pass into law by 23 January—the motion must be tabled by him, by Government, or, theoretically, by us on an Opposition day—it cannot come to pass. He should not inadvertently mislead us by suggesting that this will happen automatically. If he is saying that he will table such a motion and allow for a debate, we would be very grateful, but he should not inadvertently mislead the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the shadow Leader of the House is not making a speech to, or at, the Leader of the House. What he is really doing is asking for my guidance, which I am happy to provide. If that guidance happens to coincide with his own interpretation of matters, I dare say that he will dance around the mulberry bush in exultant celebration. Let me tell him and the House what the position is. I understand that the regulations are indeed being debated in Committee as we speak as a result of a reference moved by Ministers in response to a prayer—that is a motion against the regulations. I am sure that the House is with me so far. That is a perfectly commonplace, almost prosaic, procedure. It is open to Ministers to bring forward the prayer for decision in the House without further debate, or it can be brought forward by the Opposition on an Opposition day for determination by the House. That is the situation.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

If the hon. Gentleman is quizzical, I would not wish him to remain so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for that guidance. May I seek a little bit more? I was not sure whether you heard the Deputy Leader of the House say, “Yes, that is what’s going to happen,” because that is not what, thus far, the Government have said—

[Mr Speaker]

What is “it” in this context?

[Chris Bryant]

That they will bring forward a motion, so that there is a vote. It does not happen automatically. As I understand it, the Government have to decide to do it. If the Leader or Deputy Leader of the House would nod to indicate that that is what they are going to do—

[Mr Speaker]

Look, the hon. Gentleman is an extremely important Member of this House, and no one is more keenly conscious of that fact than he, but it is not for him to seek to persuade, cajole or exhort people to nod. If the Leader or Deputy Leader of the House wishes to give the House a clear indication now of the Government’s intentions in respect of this matter, specifically the centrality or otherwise of the Chamber to its resolution, either of them is perfectly free to do so, but neither of them is under any obligation. It is a case of speak now or, if not forever hold your peace, for the time being do so.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The answer to the hon. Lady is twofold. First, it is not for me to consider the provision of additional support in the sense in which she implies it—that is to say, financially paid-for support. Secondly—I intend no discourtesy to the hon. Lady and I am not being pedantic; I am trying to be precise—there is a very real sense in which she does not go through the certification process. I do. That is the responsibility of the Chair, with which I have been invested by the House.

Thirdly—I am really trying to be helpful to the hon. Lady and to the House in the context of what is, let us face it, a new procedure—although it is not for me to pledge or to hint at any additional support of a kind that she might have had in mind, what she does have is the support of the Clerks and other procedural specialists in this House. The hon. Lady knows well the route to the Table Office and, if I may say so, I think she should take advantage of its expertise. Our bewigged friends have very considerable expertise in these matters. They are not only prepared to advise the hon. Lady and any other Member; they are positively excited by the prospect of doing so. [Interruption.] I say to the shadow Leader of the House that the fact that they are excited by the prospect rather suggests that they will have a smile on their face at the time.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

They have now.

[Mr Speaker]

And they have now. I hope that will do for today. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and I know each other well, and if she has further difficulties in the future I am always pleased to hear from her and to try to assist her and any other Member in this or other matters.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)—I am advised by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) that I have pronounced that correctly, and I would not dare argue with him on that matter—is that, yes, such a proposition from the Government of course requires the assent of the House and that motion 6 is before the House, so I think we are fairly clear about that. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether this has happened before. He is quite an experienced denizen of this House and he will know that there are precedents for most things. The short answer is that, yes, Prime Minister’s questions have been cancelled—relatively recently, in fact—at relatively short notice before. He can consult the record, but I think it related to marking the unsurpassed tenure of Her Majesty the Queen. That was the occasion, at least most recently; there are precedents for these things.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful for what you said earlier about manuscript amendments. Many new Members have been asking me what they are. Of course, their name does not mean that they are hand-written, but it does mean that as long as things are in order when they are tabled you would be open to the possibility of amendments that do not get tabled until tomorrow morning. There has also been some confusion about the difference between the Table Office and the Vote Office. It is right to say that the motion has been available in the Table Office from the moment the Government tabled it, but it has not been available in the Vote Office. [Interruption.] Oh, grow up! Would it not on this occasion be a good idea for this to be published formally, so that it is available for all Members of the House in both the Vote Office and the Table Office?

[Mr Speaker]

I think it would be better if it were available in both. I am advised by he who knows, to whom I am grateful, that the motion has been available in the Vote Office since 12.56 pm.

Look, we are where we are. I genuinely thank the Leader of the House for what he has said, and his attempt to provide clarification here and there. It is so much better if we can proceed in a consensual manner on matters of procedure. We acknowledge the existence of differences of opinion on the substance—differences of opinion that will exist right across the country—but we must do our business in an efficient, orderly and, where possible in terms of procedure, consensual fashion. I think the point is made, and it should not need to be revisited on subsequent occasions.

Backbench Business

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

That was ironic and should be in italics in Hansard.

[Mr Speaker]

If the hon. Member for Wellingborough spoke with his usual sincerity, some might think that he displayed an optimism worthy of Dr Pangloss. We shall wait and see. I had not noticed in the last Parliament the Government displaying any great earnestness to stick to their commitment to make proposals for a House business committee. Perhaps in this Parliament they will have remembered that commitment and will decide to act on it. Perhaps they will do so of their own volition, or perhaps they will be cajoled, exhorted, harangued and persuaded into doing so by the combined intellectual and rhetorical firepower of the hon. Members for Wellingborough and for Nottingham North.

Commons Financial Privilege

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

It is clear that the Government intend to give the House of Lords a kicking, but they should remember, as they fashion this pretend constitutional crisis, that the vast majority of people in this country applauded the Lords on Monday, because the measure was not in the Government’s manifesto. Does the Leader of the House see no irony at all in getting a Member of the House of Lords—and, for that matter, a hereditary peer—to review the financial privilege of the House of Commons? Is this the right person for the task? After all, in 1999, Lord Strathclyde said of the convention that the House of Lords did not strike down statutory instruments:

“I declare this convention dead.”

That same day, he and the Lords voted down two Labour Government statutory instruments. Now he thinks that it is an utter disgrace to do so. Is there one rule for Tory regulations and another for Labour ones? Is he now a convert or frankly just a hypocrite?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] I am perfectly capable of dealing with these matters. I certainly do not require any sedentary chuntering, however well-intentioned, from hon. Members. Their interventions are superfluous. The shadow Leader of the House should withdraw that term.

[Chris Bryant]

I withdraw that term unreservedly, Mr Speaker; I presume that he is a convert.

Why are there no representatives of other parties or of the House of Commons on the review panel? Would it not be better for this House to conduct its own inquiry into the operation of secondary legislation? Could not the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, whose admirable Chairman is in the Chamber now, do the job far better?

Is there not a far simpler means of guaranteeing the financial privilege of the Commons? The Government should stop relying on secondary legislation and introduce properly scrutinised primary legislation as money Bills that are covered by the Parliament Act instead. In all honesty, is it not a disgrace that measures affecting 3.2 million people should be decided in a 90-minute debate with no opportunity for amendment? There is a very simple principle here: money Bills do not receive scrutiny in the Lords, so they get extra time in the House of Commons; secondary legislation does not get much time in the Commons, so it does receive consideration in the Lords.

Does the Leader of the House not realise that the Lords had the power they did on Monday only because the Government tried to sidestep scrutiny by using secondary legislation dependent on the Tax Credits Act 2002, section 66 of which specifies that changes to tax credit rates must be approved by both Houses of Parliament? As things stand, the Government rely on hundreds of Acts that have the same provision. Does the Leader of the House intend to make retrospective amendments to each and every one of those Acts, and will he use the Parliament Act to drive that through?

We have very few checks to Executive power in this country. If we do not protect our constitution, it is not worth the paper it is not written on. There is a real danger that if Parliament as a whole lets the Government of the day dismantle every check and balance, they will no longer be governing by consent—and that really would be a constitutional crisis.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House has pointedly refused to answer any questions about the terms of reference of the panel of experts, its members and whether they will be paid, or whether they will be able to take evidence. He said that he would make those details available in the fullness of time. He has chosen not to make a written ministerial statement or an oral statement to the House, so we cannot presume that he will make the details available to the House before he makes them available to the rest of the country. I wonder whether he might now like to leap to his feet to point out that he will make all the details available in the Library.

[Mr Speaker]

The Leader of the House is entitled to rise to his feet, but he is not obliged to do so. I think that it would be fair to say that these matters, as far as I can discern, are under consideration. Conclusions have not been reached. The detail is not yet known. It will be decided in due course. The request is that the House be informed first. I think that it would be a reasonable supposition that if an important part of the subject matter is the prerogatives of the House of Commons, it will occur to the Leader of the House first to notify the House of Commons of the particulars.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point in his own way, and I feel sure that its thrust, or what Jack Straw used to call its gravamen, will be winging its way to Cardiff media outlets ere long. Meanwhile, his point is on the record and I will not respond.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I fear that I shall have to respond to a point of order from Mr Chris Bryant.

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has now decided on a double majority voting procedure that will require a new process after we have voted in the Lobby. Can you clarify whether you will be making a statement on Monday to inform us how that will operate?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that I did not have it in mind to make any such statement on Monday. I am aware that there is a relative urgency about these matters, and before long there will be a practical requirement to address cases that will arise under the revised arrangements. If such matters are to be addressed by me and others, and if there is an implication for the House as a whole, the necessary administration will need to be put in place.

It is not immediately obvious to me that the matter is so urgent that it requires a statement to the House on Monday. It may be that this issue is what we in the Speaker’s office call UIMOM—urgent in mind of Member—and that is not necessarily the same as being urgent for the House on Monday. However, if on the basis of further and better advice I decide that the matter is urgent for Monday, I will do my duty—of that the shadow Leader of the House need be in no doubt.

Wilson Doctrine

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I seek leave to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely the operation of the Wilson doctrine.

The right of Members of this House to be able to represent their constituents without fear or favour is intrinsic to our democracy. It is the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights and one of the most ancient freedoms of this country. In another era, before the existence of telephones and emails, it meant that MPs and peers, even in times of war, had the right for their written correspondence not to be intercepted or interfered with.

Since 17 November 1966, Members have relied on the words of Harold Wilson, the then Prime Minister, who said that he had instructed

“that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of the Members of Parliament. That was our decision and that was our policy.”

He added:

“But if there was any development of a kind which required a change in the general policy, I would, at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on my own initiative make a statement in the House about it.”—[Official Report, 17 November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 639.]

Despite the slightly opaque wording Wilson then used, that rapidly became known as the Wilson doctrine and it was extended five days later by Lord Longford to Members of the House of Lords. It was subsequently—and erroneously, it turns out—thought that it equally applied to Members of the European Parliament, to Members of the other three legislatures in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and to all other forms of digital communication.

Yesterday, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal gave its ruling on a case brought by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is in her place, and others. The judgment states that

“The Wilson Doctrine has no legal effect”

and calls it

“a political statement in a political context, encompassing the ambiguity that is sometimes to be found in political statements”.

That runs contrary to assurances given to Members of both the Commons and the Lords by successive Governments, including the current one, and casts doubt on the protection supposedly afforded by the Wilson doctrine. To all intents and purposes, it means that the Wilson doctrine is dead.

From your own intervention to the tribunal, Mr Speaker, and from the points of order raised by several Members yesterday, it is clear that Members on both sides of the House believe that this ambiguity needs clearing up as a matter of urgency. I note that the Home Secretary stonewalled on the issue when asked about it by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) on Monday, and this very morning the Leader of the House gave the most opaque comment I have heard yet on the matter.

Serious questions remain. First, is the Wilson doctrine still in operation in any meaningful sense whatsoever? Secondly, have parliamentarians’ communications been deliberately targeted? Thirdly, if so, has that been on the authority of a Minister, a Secretary of State or anyone else? This is an urgent matter and it needs consideration.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. The hon. Gentleman asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24, namely the Wilson doctrine. I have listened carefully to his application, and I am satisfied that the matter raised by him is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. Has the hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?

Application agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has indeed obtained the leave of the House. The debate will be held on Monday 19 October as the first item of public business. The debate will last for up to three hours, and will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the hon. Gentleman’s application.

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful to you for what you have just announced. Given the Leader of the House’s announcement earlier that we will have a statement from the Prime Minister on Monday—such statements sometimes run for an hour or even two hours—and that we will then have this three-hour debate, there will not be much time for the Psychoactive Substances Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

No. The Leader of the House says that that is our fault. It is for the Government to make provision for matters of interest to the whole House and to make proper provision for scrutiny of their own legislation.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is of course that the timetabling of business is a matter for the usual channels, not for the Chair. It is important to explain that, not least for those beyond the House who are interested in and listening to our proceedings. What is a matter for the Chair—in general terms, but importantly—is the principle that the opportunity for scrutiny should be protected. It is extremely important, if there is a Second Reading of a Bill, that there is adequate time for it to be debated and, in the context of such a Second Reading debate, for its general principles to be the subject of scrutiny, so I hope that adequate time will be provided for that purpose. It is Thursday and the matters concerned will not be treated of until Monday, so there is certainly plenty of time for consideration of how the different priorities of the House can each and every one of them be met. I think we can leave that there for now. If there are no further points of order, the Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman and take his concerns very seriously. I was here when he asked his question and noted his evident dissatisfaction with the response. The point I would very gently make is that it was, of course, one question and one response. Sometimes, if there is a fuller opportunity to explore such matters—the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the arsenal of weapons available to Members trying to secure a fuller and more thorough interrogation on an issue—some light emerges. If the hon. Gentleman gets the drift of that advice, he may, with other colleagues, wish to follow that course.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

He may even receive some encouragement in it from the shadow Leader of the House.

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am glad that you told the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) that he should be indefatigable and keep on going, because there are other means whereby we can make sure that this clear ambiguity, which cannot possibly be in the interests of any Member of this House, should be dealt with. The freedom of Members to be able to speak without fear or favour, and without fear of being spied on by the Government or any other agency, is a vital part of our being able to do our job as representatives, and it strikes at the heart of our liberties. It would, of course, be possible for the Leader of the House to make a statement as a matter of urgency. Obviously, he is present, so I wonder whether he might like to leap to his feet and say that he would be happy to do that tomorrow and clear up all the ambiguity.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. The Leader of the House is sitting impassively: he does not intend to take to his feet at this stage. He may do so subsequently—I do not know—but I simply repeat the thrust of the theme I was developing in response to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) by saying this: if Members feel that this matter has now acquired an urgent character, or even that it might warrant consideration as an emergency, there are parliamentary methods open to them. I do not think I could be accused of being over-subtle or delphic.

[Chris Bryant]

You’ve never been accused of that!

[Mr Speaker]

I have never been accused of that—that is true!

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman encourages me, and I am grateful to him for his encouragement, but he knows that, in so far as there is any latitude, I tend to use it to try to ensure that we get further down the Order Paper. Therefore, as he will have noticed—he is a very observant fellow—we do not always finish at 12.30 precisely; sometimes we stray a bit beyond that. I think we once went as late as 12.38. The hon. Gentleman is exhorting me to go even longer. He might be exhorting me to get into trouble. I am sure that he would not do that deliberately. I agree with the thrust of what he says. We ought to be trying to get down the Order Paper. The exchanges between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are very important, but they are by no means the only part of Prime Minister’s questions. The opportunity for Back-Bench Members to put their questions to the Prime Minister is precious, so I will do everything I can, increasing my efforts if necessary, to ensure that that happens.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is on a completely different matter, and although I gently suggest that your middle name is Latitude, there is one area on which you might allow less latitude. Last Friday the House debated the Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill, but the debate did not start until 9.48 am because we had a Division that, to my mind, was completely unnecessary. About 10 Members shouted “Aye” when the Question was put on whether the House should sit in private. In practice, only one Member, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), voted Aye and two Members acted as Tellers. However, several of the Members who shouted “Aye” then voted no. As you know, because the acclamation is part of the voting process and how we proceed, it is a requirement in this House that one’s vote must follow one’s voice, if one chooses then to vote. I am not making bones about the practice of Members shouting and then not voting, but I am making bones about the fact that some Members shouted “Aye” when they had every intention of voting no. Will you make it clear to hon. Members that there is no need to waste time in that way?

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, I will. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make bones about the matter, on the assumption, of course, that what he is conveying to the House is truthful, which I am sure he absolutely intends it to be—he always does his research, so I am sure that he has a reason for making a bone about this point. We should not waste time. The public expect us to get on with the substance of debate. If the hon. Gentleman remains dissatisfied over a period, he could consider having a word with the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).

[Chris Bryant]

I have done that.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, he might need to do so again. I think that it would be useful to have a view from the Committee on the use of the device that causes a delay in the start of debates on a Friday.

I think that I am right in saying that the appetite for points of order has now been exhausted.

Bill Presented

Immigration Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mrs Secretary May, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Sajid Javid, Mr Secretary Duncan Smith, Mr Secretary Clark, Secretary Nicky Morgan, Mr Secretary McLoughlin, Matthew Hancock and James Brokenshire, presented a Bill to make provision about the law on immigration and asylum; to make provision about access to services, facilities, licences and work by reference to immigration status; to make provision about the Director of Labour Market Enforcement; to make provision about language requirements for public sector workers; to make provision about fees for passports and civil registration; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 12 October, and to be printed (Bill 74) with explanatory notes (Bill 74-EN).

Points of Order

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and appreciate his patience in waiting to be called. It will be entirely orderly for the hon. Gentleman or his party so to table. As Speaker, my responsibility is simply to hear an application and judge whether it has merit, rather than to become embroiled in what might be considered to be competitions between parties. He has asked me a straight question—will it be orderly?—and the answer is yes. That seems to satisfy not only the hon. Gentleman, but, very importantly—and I mean this—the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) to boot.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Can we boot the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)?

[Mr Speaker]

No.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Bercow

Thursday 4th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Brevity is of the essence—we have a lot to get through. I hope that people will take note.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

You always say that before I start, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.] And you know about shortness, don’t you?

I have already welcomed the new Secretary of State, but I welcome the new sports Minister very warmly. I liked her predecessor enormously, but when she was appointed I just wanted to run around and give her a hug. I am very pleased. It is a delight to see the new arts Minister, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), in his place. He looks remarkably like the old arts Minister, except that he has lost his beard. Perhaps that is how he managed to survive. Honestly, it is a delight to see him in his place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Whittingdale]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and welcome the love-in between the two Front Benches, but I am sure it will not last.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s astonishment that, even today, there are new claims being made by Jack Warner. This saga becomes more murky and distasteful by the day. As I said earlier, however, the World cup is a separate matter and we await the outcome of the investigations. If there is evidence that the bid process was corrupt, the case for rerunning it will be strong. However, if the World cup goes ahead, it would be unfair to tell English fans, and indeed fans of the other home nations if their sides qualify, that they cannot watch their sides compete in the World cup because the broadcasters will not purchase the sports rights to cover it. That is a separate matter. The important thing is that we get this all cleared up long before the World cup in 2018.

[Mr Speaker]

The equally important thing is that we speed up. I do not want Back-Bench Members to lose out. Let us have a very brief exchange, please, between the two Front Benchers.

[Chris Bryant]

Right. Well, talking of the licence fee, when the Secretary of State was Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, he said that the Government should get on with charter renewal as fast as possible. I note that it is only 576 days until the charter runs out, so will he get on with it? Can he give us a little clue as to his own inclinations? He was Mrs Thatcher’s toy boy and Norman Tebbit’s special adviser. He calls himself a free-market Conservative and, like Nigel Farage, thinks that it is debatable whether the BBC should even make “Strictly”. He says the licence fee is “worse than the poll tax”, but I think he always supported the poll tax, so is Auntie safe in his hands?