Affordable Homes Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Tony Baldry

Friday 5th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Let me finish this point and then I will gladly give way to the hon. Lady.

My hon. Friend the Minister intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) to say that the Government and Department have costed this Bill at £1 billion. Could that calculation and the arithmetic that supports it be put in a written answer in Hansard, and the figures placed in the Library so that we can all see them? This is important because it follows a decision the whole House took overwhelmingly earlier this year that if this Bill for example, costs £1 billion, then £1 billion of cuts must be made elsewhere in the welfare budget.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can help us. The Government’s original estimate of the saving to the taxpayer of introducing the bedroom tax was £490 million. Today apparently, with a suspiciously round figure, the cost of getting rid of the bedroom tax would be £1 billion. How can that be possible?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives sought to lull us all into a sense of reasonableness by asserting that this was just a Bill to tidy up and amend the spare room subsidy. It is clear, however, from the comments of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, that the real intention of those who support this Bill is to remove the spare room subsidy completely, so the purpose of the Bill is not what my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives said; it has a completely different purpose.

My fundamental point is still valid. If this Bill costs £1 billion, then given the welfare cap—which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and pretty much all Labour Members voted for earlier this year—the consequences of enacting it will mean that £1 billion must be saved from somewhere else in the welfare budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Having been in the House for nearly a third of a century, I implicitly trust what those on the Treasury Bench say. If the Minister says that the cost of the Bill will be £1 billion, I am sure that it will be and that he will be able to demonstrate to the House how he has come to that figure. The fundamental point, which I think we are all agreed on, is that whatever the Bill costs, whether £0.5 billion or £1 billion, that sum must be found somewhere else in the welfare budget. We cannot simply come to the House and seek to spend taxpayers’ money without that having consequences. Given that everyone has pretty much signed up to the welfare cap, one consequence is having to make savings elsewhere in the welfare budget.

When I first saw the Bill, one of the policy conundrums for me was why the previous Labour Government introduced almost identical proposals for tenants in the private rented sector—[Interruption.] I will come on to this in some detail, don’t you worry! Why did they think that it was appropriate to treat tenants on housing benefit in social housing differently from tenants on housing benefit in the private rented sector? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda, who is probably one of the greatest chunterers in the House, says that it was not introduced retrospectively. Given the length of the average private rented tenancy, if his best point is that there is somehow a distinction because shorthold assured tenancies usually run for six months it is not a very good point.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman is talking utter Baldrydash. First, the truth of the matter is that the first measures on size criteria were introduced by a Conservative Government in 1989. Secondly, the Labour Government never introduced any retrospective measure. Thirdly, but far more important, the key point about social housing is that it is allocated on the basis of need. Our measure was completely different.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

One thing I will miss when I eventually leave the House is the hon. Gentleman’s charm. I suspect I will not miss it for long, but I will miss it.

I looked back in detail at the local housing allowance legislation, which was introduced for new claimants living in the deregulated private sector from 7 April 2008. Following the Social Security Act 1986, the housing benefit scheme was introduced in April 1988. As the House knows, housing benefit is a means-tested benefit administered by local authorities. It is paid to eligible tenants who live in the social and private rented sectors. Entitlement to housing benefit is calculated by comparing the needs and resources of the household, taking the liability for rent payments into account in calculating household net income. Before local housing allowance was introduced, private sector tenants also claimed housing benefit.

On 17 October 2002, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith), my county colleague, who was then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, announced plans for a new form of housing benefit that could no longer be directly linked to rent. He described the plans as

“the biggest reform in Housing Benefit since the benefit began.”

One characteristic of housing benefit reforms is that Ministers always say that their reform is the biggest since the benefit began, but he did seek to make significant savings.

The new approach was introduced in nine pathfinder areas from November 2003 and was extended to a further nine areas from April 2005. At the time, this is how the Department for Work and Pensions described the aims and objectives of the local housing allowance:

“Local Housing Allowance…is the cornerstone of the Government’s Housing Benefit reform programme which aims to simplify Housing Benefit and ensure it supports the wider objectives for welfare reform.”

Most hon. Members are sufficiently savvy to recognise the phrase

“ensure it supports the wider objectives for welfare reform”

as Treasury-speak for making public sector savings. That is exactly what the Labour Government sought to do. The Department for Work and Pensions website at the time said:

“The fundamental aims of the LHA scheme are to promote…Fairness…LHA bases the maximum amount paid to tenants on the size, composition and location of the household. Benefit will no longer be based on actual rents but on median levels of rent within localities.”

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Tony Baldry

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The House will know, because it is a matter of record, that I am a freemason. Freemasons are registered as a charity. I do not know whether people in England want to see the introduction of masonic weddings. As the new clause has not been properly consulted on, and there has not been time for proper consideration of all its ramifications, it leads the hon. Gentleman into all sorts of areas that have not been properly construed. There has been no proper opportunity for the House to take the advice of the Attorney-General.

I say to the hon. Member for Rhondda that during the past couple of days I have been a bit confused as to which are wrecking amendments and which are not. I am still trying to work out whether the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was a genuine amendment or a wrecking amendment. I am really not quite sure whether this new clause is a genuine amendment or a wrecking amendment, because it is difficult to see how Parliament, and certainly the other place, could allow the Bill as amended by the new clause to go forward without a serious delay while there was proper consultation to think through the ramifications.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I think the hon. Gentleman united the House in confirming that he is confused. We all agree with him; he is clearly confused. If he thinks that the new clause would lead to pagan weddings, can he explain why the Bishop the Chester—the Anglican, Church of England, Bishop of Chester—supports it? Would it not make sense for us to allow this to go forward to the House of Lords so that the Bishop of Chester can speak on the matter?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

First, the only point that I am confused about is whether this is a wrecking amendment. Secondly, in this House I speak for the Church of England, not the Bishop of Chester, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, with 44 diocesan Bishops, it is usually possible to find at least one Bishop who will have a view contrary to the other 43. Let me put it on record, lest there is any scintilla of doubt, that the Church of England is strongly opposed to the new clause, not because we do not love or like humanists, but simply because it would unpick the locks in the Bill, which, when we started, were important to ensuring the protections of faith groups in the context of this legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Tony Baldry

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I, however, have something to add. The Second Church Estates Commissioner’s last point was absolutely right: this is not a sect we are dealing with. I say that to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), whose assessment of our role in relation to the Church is completely and utterly wrong. The Church of England is established by law. We can turn down any changes to liturgy that it wants to make, for example. Is it not time we changed by law the system whereby people are elected to the Synod so that it is more representative and looks more like a national Church?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I am quite sure that the review that is taking place into the way people are elected to General Synod will try to ensure the greatest opportunity for people in the Church to have a vote and feel that they are represented. Parliament, for example, decided long ago that all of us—everyone in every parish—have a vote in elections for church wardens. One would think that at the very least in elections to General Synod everyone on a church electoral roll should have a vote.

Women Bishops

Debate between Chris Bryant and Tony Baldry

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I am sure that it must be possible to resolve this issue. The important thing is to continue to work at it until it is resolved. An increasing number of ordinands coming into the Church are women, and we need to have a Church in which everyone is valued. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is correct is saying that, at present, a number of women out there in the clergy are feeling undervalued. That is wrong; they are very much valued and cherished, and there needs to be a full place for them in our national Church.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Since I was ordained as a priest in the Church of England 25 years ago, women have become vicars, rectors, deans, rural deans and even archdeacons, so it is ludicrous that they cannot now become bishops. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we will have no truck with more concessions to the hard-liners who want to make women second-rate bishops. We need to speed this up. Would it not make sense to have a moratorium on the appointment of any more male bishops until there could also be women bishops—no nomination without feminisation?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Of course, we could have done that if the Prime Minister still had control over the appointment of bishops.

Multiannual Financial Framework

Debate between Chris Bryant and Tony Baldry

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I do not want to give way to lots of people, as that would steal away time from others, but I can never resist the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Tony Baldry

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes. I do not think that there will be any constraint on priests or former priests standing for election to the elected part of the second Chamber. On the second part of his question, I suspect that all of us here earnestly hope that, sooner or later, the Church of England will have women bishops.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I completely agree, and I praise the hon. Gentleman for all his work on trying to bring in women bishops, but has he read the Bill that we are to debate next week? It does not actually define what a bishop is. The Bill does not say whether it refers to diocesan bishops, suffragan bishops, Anglican bishops, Catholic bishops, bishops from Scotland or bishops from Wales. Is this a radical step that the Church is going to support?

Debate on the Address

Debate between Chris Bryant and Tony Baldry

Wednesday 9th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tony Baldry]

Since the general election the Labour party has engaged in a wonderful exercise in propounding the motif that cuts are being made too far and too fast. In his autobiography, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer responsibly acknowledges the mistakes made by the last Labour Government. Opposition Members, however, have tried to develop a line that will enable them simultaneously to go around the City of London saying “We are being sensible and responsible about the deficit and about the need to reduce public spending” and, when campaigning, to present the impression privately, on the doorstep of every household in the country, that, given their own way, they would not reduce any individual item of public expenditure. That is a circle that the Opposition cannot square, and until they get real in explaining to the country and the markets how they will actually tackle the budget deficit, they will not be taken seriously as an Opposition, let alone as a Government in waiting.

We must never forget that the present Government inherited a budget deficit of 11%—bigger than Greece’s, bigger than Spain’s, and bigger than Portugal’s. We all know that if we do not deal properly with our debts and with the nation’s deficit it will be impossible to keep interest rates low, and that, quite apart from the benefit that low interest rates provide for businesses and those paying mortgages, they offer us the best prospects of getting out of our present difficult economic situation.

The Government and the Chancellor inherited a deeply dysfunctional economy in which, all too often, the taxes generated by the financial and property sectors in the south paid for higher public spending in the north. As Sir Mervyn King so tellingly testified in his speech last week, it was an economy in which the City had been poorly policed, and in which growth was too dependent on debt. Making clear that we intended to have a credible fiscal plan has helped us in Britain to maintain our top international credit rating and has brought interest rates to record lows, making family mortgages and business loans cheaper. Sticking to the deficit plan means that, having inherited a deficit larger than those of Spain or Greece, we have interest rates similar to those in Germany. Indeed, the IMF’s latest forecast for the UK expects it to grow faster than France or Germany. In considering where we are now, we should not forget that the recent Budget cut taxes for 24 million working people.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tony Baldry]

I love the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)! He left the Chamber for a considerable period, has been back for two seconds, and now wants to intervene. However, because he is very supportive on Church matters, I am happy to give way to him.

[Chris Bryant]

So much excitement was being engendered by the hon. Gentleman that I felt the need to return to the Chamber. Then I started to listen, which is where I made my mistake. I think the hon. Gentleman said that the present Government had cut interest rates. Can he tell us when they did so? My understanding is that they have been entirely flat since they changed under a Labour rather than a Conservative Government.

[Tony Baldry]

The hon. Gentleman was so excited by my speech that he misheard me. I made no reference to the Government’s cutting interest rates. What I said was that the Government’s financial and economic policies had enabled us, and were still enabling us, to keep interest rates low, while also ensuring that our interest rates compared with those of Germany. I have absolutely no doubt that if we followed the economic policies advocated by Opposition Front Benchers, we would soon see interest rates, including mortgage interest rates, soaring as a consequence.

The Government have taken 2 million people out of tax, they have continued to freeze council tax, and—as I have already observed—they have cut corporation tax so that we can compete with the rest of the world. Moreover, notwithstanding the challenges at home, Britain is meeting its commitments overseas. We are behaving as one would expect of a permanent member of the UN Security Council, honouring our obligations in Afghanistan, seeking to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation—particularly with Iran—and helping to bring greater stability to the horn of Africa. We are supporting democrats in Libya, and, through the Department for International Development, we are helping to tackle poverty around the world.

We should be proud that Britain is sticking to its aid promises. We are a friend to the world’s poorest, and giving aid represents the best of British values. Some 40 years after they first promised to give 0.7% of their national income in aid, rich countries are less than halfway there. Among the major economies, only we in the UK are on target to meet our commitments. Some of the more Poujadist elements of the press claim that public support for aid is diminishing. I suspect that that is because some two thirds of the public think that we spend up to 20 times more on foreign aid than we actually do. Once people know that our aid budget is just over a single penny in every pound spent by the Government, they are much more supportive.

Understandably, the Session of Parliament since the general election has been unusually long, but it is still impressive that the Government have passed more than 30 main programme Bills since the election to help to reduce the UK’s budget deficit and reform our public services. Their programme has been guided by the three core values of responsibility, fairness and freedom. The new Session will be shorter, so it will provide scope for fewer Bills. I do not think that there was any doubt on the doorsteps about what our constituents want us to focus on. They want us to continue to get the economy going, continue to improve the NHS, and continue to sort out welfare and education; and, importantly, they want us to demonstrate that we are on the side of those who are working hard and doing the best they can for their families.

One of the best-kept secrets of the last Budget is that the Chancellor raised personal allowances—the amount that people can earn before being taxed—so that 24 million middle-earning taxpayers will keep more of their money, and, from next April, 2 million low-paid people will not pay income tax at all. I can tell those who call for tax cuts that this year we have already made the largest tax cuts for more than a decade. I think everyone would agree that we should be doing all that we can to help families who are trying to do the best for themselves.

Of course we need to focus on jobs and economic growth. I am very glad that the proposals in a report by my constituent Adrian Beecroft for streamlining of the rules that make it hard for businesses to hire and fire employees are to be taken up. Redundancy rules, employment tribunals and rules about unfair dismissal all need to be changed, as Adrian Beecroft’s well-researched and well-argued report clearly demonstrates. We should be doing everything possible to encourage employers to expand and employ more people.

It is good news that the Government will reduce burdens on businesses by repealing unnecessary legislation and legislating to limit the state inspection of businesses. It is also good news that they will reform competition law in order to promote enterprise and fair markets. I think that many businesses will welcome the news that there is to be strengthened regulation of the financial services sector, and that the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking are to be implemented.

I also welcome the proposals relating to pensions. I think everyone agrees on the need to modernise the pensions system and reform the state pension, and on the importance of creating a fair and sustainable foundation for private saving. Governments must always seek to be on the side of those who save for retirement. I do not think that anyone seriously believes that it is possible to avoid reforming public service pensions in line with the recommendations of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission.

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers, I particularly welcome the news that a draft Bill is to be published to modernise adult care and support in England. The health White Paper of July 2010 promised legislation on adult social care in a second session of the present Parliament. We have all had plenty of time in which to read and digest the Dilnot report, which recommended a system under which people would pay the first chunk of nursing care costs and the state would pay after that. Given our increasingly ageing population, we need clarity, and cross-party talks have been taking place for a long time.

I also welcome the news that it is to be a draft Bill. Given such a major overhaul of social care legislation that needs to stand the test of time, and given the number of Select Committee reports on the issue, it is vital that we have an opportunity to get it right by co-operating with the Government, the Opposition and, indeed, every party in the House to produce legislation that seeks to achieve the right outcomes for everyone concerned.

[Tony Baldry]

I think we all want a long-term solution, which is why it is sensible for a draft Bill to be published so that everyone can agree the way forward, and so that when a Bill is presented to the House it has all-party support.

May I say in my capacity as Second Church Estates Commissioner that I welcome the introduction of a Bill to reduce the burdens on charities by enabling them to claim additional payments on small donations? Many Members of Parliament are involved in charities, perhaps as trustees or patrons. Church groups often rely on Sunday collections and small giving by large numbers of people. This move will allow extra support for charities.

Like all Members of Parliament, a fair amount of my constituency casework involves helping families with disabled children and children with special educational needs, so I greatly welcome the proposals in the Queen’s Speech to introduce measures to improve provision for such children, and the arrangements for supporting children in family law cases and reforming court processes for children in care. That is important, painstaking and detailed work that should improve the lives of many children.

I do not think too much should be read into the fact that the Queen’s Speech does not contain a specific proposal for a hybrid Bill on High Speed 2. The matter is now before the High Court, which is having to consider several applications on judicial review involving points of law on both the process and substance of the HS2 project. Notwithstanding any judicial review proceedings, however, I continue to hope that the Government will reflect that the economic case for HS2 simply does not stack up.

It is clear that in this Session of Parliament the Government will continue to strive for smaller government, freer competition and greater international trade, and they will continue to pursue policies that have been proven to work in the past and that will also work in the future.

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On 25 April, I told the House that the Leveson inquiry had published certain information regarding meetings that had been held between Rupert Murdoch and the Prime Minister. I believed at the time that that was the case, but it has subsequently turned out not to be true. I have, of course, apologised to Lord Justice Leveson, but I thought I should take this opportunity to apologise to the House as well. I hope the apology will be accepted. I had no intention of misleading the House; that was purely inadvertent.

Women in the Church of England

Debate between Chris Bryant and Tony Baldry

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant]

Several articles need a little bit of reform. When I was a curate, my cassock had 28 buttons, and I did not do them all up for that very reason, but I have always been a little heterodox. I feel a bit disturbed when the hon. Gentleman refers to me as reverend; I think that is over.

The Church of England surely offers something different. Plenty of other Churches do not have women bishops or allow women to perform a full ministry, but I believe that the Church of England developed not just because of Henry VIII’s licentiousness, but because it had something genuine to offer—a middle ground between Protestantism and Catholicism, and a belief that the rational can inform the spiritual and that disciplinary autonomy in this country was important if there was to be a mission to everyone in this country, regardless of whatever the Pope might say, do or insist upon from over the seas. That was an important mission, and I think it survives today. I have a terrible fear that some people want the Church of England to become a sect and not be a Church at all, and I hope that that will be put behind us.

A bishop has to be the centre of unity in the diocese. That is why all the proposals, including those from the two archbishops, have completely misunderstood the theology of episcopacy. If someone is not the centre of unity, surely they cannot be the bishop. Any proposal that parishes should be able to opt out of a bishop because the bishop is a woman is not only fundamentally offensive and demeaning to the ministry of women—we should either do it or not do it—but will simply create a new style of wholly inappropriate schism in the Church. We were wrong to have flying bishops, and we would be wrong to advance similar proposals.

I hope that when the bishops meet, soon, they do not make any changes at all—certainly no changes of substance. I also hope that the Government will not shilly-shally about providing time for us to get on with it. The Ecclesiastical Committee should not have to wait until October. I am sure that it will take just one day. Why can it not meet in July, during the Olympics, or whenever?

[Tony Baldry]

We will make all speed, but the reason is simply that various pieces of legislative drafting have to be done. General Synod does not meet until mid-July, and the House rises quite early this year because of the Olympics, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the work will be done with all possible speed.

[Chris Bryant]

It did not sound like it. I have enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman—he has said some sensible things on the matter and I know that he is on the side of the angels—but please do not use all that language; just get on with it.

In the end, the only words on the issue that matter to me are in Galatians 3:28, which I am sure all the people down the other end of the Chamber could repeat verbatim with me, but we might be using different translations of the Bible, so let us not try:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Tony Baldry

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Next year also provides an opportunity for a grand national festival and celebration because of the Queen’s diamond jubilee. May I tell my hon. Friend that in Banbury and Bicester we are already planning for that event, and in Banbury we intend to hold the largest street party in the country?

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

And doubtless next year you will blame the jubilee for the collapse in the economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Tony Baldry

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend was a much-respected organist and director of church music, and I think that one of the glories of England is church music, choirs and organ music. One reason many people want to marry in Church of England churches is the contribution of the choir and the organist.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I have married more people than, I think, anybody else in this House, and it was always great fun marrying couples in church, but the archbishop’s special licence system involved a lot of people, frankly, telling fibs about where they lived, so I hope that that will be reformed. Would it not help if the Church of England decided that it would like now to hold civil partnership ceremonies in its churches?

[Tony Baldry]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that was a matter of much debate during the passage of the Equalities Bill both in this House and in the other place. It was resolved that there would be no change unless the General Synod agreed, and that is where the position lies today.

Voting by Prisoners

Debate between Chris Bryant and Tony Baldry

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

The last Labour Government spent five years dithering over this issue. They did nothing. As with so much else, the Labour party left it to the incoming coalition Government to sort out the mess. Therefore, the one thing on which we can all be agreed is that this is an issue on which we need to take no lessons from those on the Opposition Benches. They had five years to sort out this problem while in government and simply failed to do anything.

The European Court of Human Rights has not said that we have an obligation to give every prisoner the vote. What the ECHR did find was that a blanket ban was not proportionate, that

“the principle of proportionality requires a discernible and sufficient link between the sanction and the conduct and circumstances of the individual concerned”

and that

“in sentencing the criminal courts in England and Wales made no reference to disenfranchisement and it was not apparent that there was any direct link between the facts of any individual case and the removal of the right to vote.”

I think we should seek to address those issues. It would be wrong simply to put two fingers up to the Court because we did not like the implications of its judgment.

There is a perfectly straightforward way forward that deals with the ECHR points and meets the collective view of this House that prisoners should lose the right to vote while in detention, because it has always been agreed that if one commits a serious crime, one should lose the right to have a say in how one is governed. The way forward lies in the ECHR’s judgment in Hirst, but it also lies in the ECHR’s judgments in cases involving other European countries: Frodl v. Austria and Scoppola v. Italy, the No. 3 case. In Frodl, the Court said that

“the sanction of disenfranchisement...should preferably be imposed not by operation of a law but by the decision of a judge following judicial proceedings”.

In Scoppola, the Court held

“that a decision on disenfranchisement should be taken by a court and should be duly reasoned.”

When a judge sentences an individual to prison the court has to make a number of decisions: on the length of imprisonment; on whether terms for individual offences should run concurrently or consecutively; and on whether part of the sentence should be suspended. Depending on the exact nature of the offence, the court will also have to put its mind to a number of other possible consequential orders.

I see no reason why a judge should not inform the defendant when sentencing that, in addition to their term of imprisonment and as a consequence of their conduct, they would, as part of their punishment, be disfranchised in regional, national and European elections for a specific period of time. As with every other aspect of sentencing, one would expect the Lord Chief Justice, senior judges and the Supreme Court to issue sentencing guidelines. Crown Court judges and magistrates are given sentencing guidelines on every other aspect of sentencing, so I see no reason why it should not be possible to devise effective sentencing guidelines on disfranchisement that start from the general premise that those who go to prison will lose the vote while they are in prison.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry to stop the hon. Gentleman’s drift, but one of the problems with that argument is that many of us disagree with judges deciding who gets to vote or does not get to vote. There is another problem, because if we go over to a system where the judges decide, every current prisoner would be granted the vote.

[Tony Baldry]

I listened to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He raised lots of problems but gave no solutions. This is an exercise in finding what might be a solution. Sentencing guidelines are effective ways of informing judges and telling them what they should do. As we have heard, the English courts have been pretty robust on this issue, so I see no reason why on devising sentencing guidelines we could not put our trust in the English judges to get it right when advising Crown Court judges and others how they should approach the issue of disfranchisement. It would of course be possible for defence counsel at the time of sentencing to make representations on this aspect of a court’s potential sentencing powers, as with any other aspect, and for the defendant to be heard before sentence was passed. Not only would it be made very clear that there was a link between the facts of the case and the removal of the right to vote, but the courts would very publicly be making it clear that, so far as the UK is concerned, those whose criminal conduct is such that it results in their having been sentenced to an immediate term of imprisonment also risk losing certain rights of citizenship, including the right to vote.

I appreciate that for many hon. Members this debacle appears to be a convenient opportunity to put two fingers up to Europe, two fingers up to human rights and two fingers up to the judges. I simply note that the motion includes the words

“acknowledges the treaty obligations of the UK”.

The motion, in rightly acknowledging our treaty obligation but arguing for the retention of a blanket ban, puts the House in the same position that the previous Government put themselves in. That resulted in the Joint Committee on Human Rights observing:

“It is also a matter for regret that the Government should seek views on retaining the current blanket ban, thereby raising expectations that this could be achieved, when in fact, this is the one option explicitly ruled out by the European Court.”

Time prevents me from arguing why this House should seek to support human rights, so I simply conclude by saying that increasing judicial review will be a feature of our lives. If this House collectively started to pick and choose which decisions of the Supreme Court we supported and which decisions of the judges we did not support, that would be a very unsatisfactory way forward. What we need to do is not only acknowledge our treaty obligations, but meet them, and we need to do so in a way that meets the concerns of everyone in this House, from the Prime Minister downwards, about having to give the vote to those in prison.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Tony Baldry

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

8. When he expects the Church of England to consecrate its first woman bishop.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago.

[Chris Bryant]

As one who did go into the Church ministry and then discovered that I had plenty of vices, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to be a little more impatient about the issue of women bishops? To be honest, it felt as if he was saying, “Nearer and nearer draws the time”, but will it be the time that will surely come when we have women bishops, and why on earth does this legislation have to come back to this House? Surely the Church of England should be freed from the shackles of bringing its legislation here, so that we can move forward on this issue rather faster.

[Tony Baldry]

If the hon. Gentleman reads what I said to the General Synod, he will see that I made it clear that many of us want this legislation to come forward as speedily as possible, but we have to get it right. The reason it comes back here is that we have an established Church, and until such time as Parliament decides that we do not, we will continue to have an established Church.