Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I know about Cuddington, because the hon. Gentleman told me about it yesterday. Cuddington is such a typical English village that it has featured in “Midsomer Murders”, which is fictional—a bit like the previous Government’s financial affairs. I know we have said that the desire to please is not part of what Ministers are meant to do, but I do have a desire to please him and his constituents. The Government will work as fast as we can with industry to try to develop 4G in his constituency. I am happy to arrange for a meeting between him and my officials to ensure he has street-by-street analysis of how we can do that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am getting more popular day by day, which is unusual in my life. I am, of course, very happy to discuss the issues in Crowthorne.

One thing that really concerns me is that quite often, the published version of what connectivity is available in everybody’s constituency will say that there is 92%, 93% or 95% of connectivity from all four operators, but actually, if we stand there with a mobile phone, there will not be any connectivity whatsoever. I have written to Ofcom and it has written back saying, for instance, that in that precise location the coverage may be above or below the predicted level, leading some consumers to not get the service they expected. There is a phrase for that.

[Mr Speaker]

Save it for another day.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this important issue that affects many people. In the words of Stephen Sondheim, “art isn’t easy,” and neither is the legislation in this area, but we are determined to look into it. It is already a criminal offence to share an intimate image without consent, whether real or synthetically generated, and we will deliver on our manifesto commitment to ban the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Jim Shannon—at least he’s not fake.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am the real thing, Mr Speaker.

The creative industries in Strangford and across Northern Ireland are very important. In responding to the point raised by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell), it is important that Northern Ireland has similar consideration. Has the Minister had an opportunity to speak to the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that anything that happens here to protect women and ladies also happens in Northern Ireland?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Although some of the areas we are discussing are, of course, devolved, we want to make sure that the whole UK moves forward in the same direction. I am keen to talk to my counterpart in Northern Ireland about this subject.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The truth is that dynamic pricing has many different forms and some of them are good. For instance, early bird tickets benefit many people, as does buying last-minute tickets for the theatre. We will not interfere with that, but we will have a call for evidence about how that works in relation to live events. On ticket pricing, the real scandal is that, for example, the face value of standing tickets for Coldplay at Wembley on 22 August 2025 is £96.23, but when I checked StubHub this morning they cost £17,633. That is the real scandal and that is what we are going to deal with.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Bob Blackman—not here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Topical questions are meant to be short and punchy, not a big, long question, Jo. Minister, can you pick the best out of that?

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

I completely agree with what my hon. Friend was about to say.

[Mr Speaker]

Which part: the first three minutes or the second? I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. She makes a really good point: as we take away the copper lines and move over to the new technology, which we need to do, it is absolutely essential that we ensure there is a safe transition, even if it is only for people who have telecare devices on which they rely for their own safety—I am sure we all have relatives who have one of those. I have already met all the operators, and I am determined to crack the whip on this issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Ayoub Khan—not here.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I hope that it is in order for me to thank all the ministerial team for when they have been absolutely courteous to us and when we have been able to work together on matters. I particularly pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who is not only a gent, but a champ.

However, we have two music venues closing every week; British artists prevented from touring in Europe; the UK art market falling from second to third in the world; A-level music students down by 45%; museums and galleries struggling with the cost of living; ballerinas told to retrain; theatre and opera touring slashed; and an apprenticeship levy that does not work for the creative industries. Was that all part of the plan? Or, in the words of RuPaul, is it not time for this appalling Government to sashay away?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am sorry, but the Government’s answer to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee was a load of hot air that could have been written by ChatGPT, except ChatGPT would have done a better job of it. The truth of the matter is that the Government’s flagship on AI as it relates to creative industries, which is meant to be protecting the moral and economic rights of artists, musicians, and authors, while at the same time recognising the important advances that AI can bring, has sunk. Last June, the Secretary of State said that if the code of practice was not achieved, legislation could be considered. So, in the words of Paul Simon, when is she going to make a new plan, Stan?

Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Reform)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My main objection to the Bill is that the right hon. Lady seeks to make this a “Brexit bonus”, as she referred to it. I disagree with that very concept, because I believe that regulatory convergence, rather than regulatory divergence, is more useful both so that British drivers know where they stand in this country and other countries in Europe, and so that European drivers are able to drive in the UK. Of course, there are other areas where there might be Brexit bonuses, because we might trade with other countries elsewhere in the world, but when it comes to driving licences specifically, the only other countries that we are likely to deal with are those within the European Union.

I believe—I think the Government do too, because so far the Department for Transport has refused to budge in the direction that the right hon. Lady suggests—that this is an inappropriate Bill that would do harm rather than good. It would not lead to greater safety, but actually imperil safety in the UK.

We signed up to the Vienna convention in 2018. Exemptions are allowed under the Vienna convention. In a previous speech on this matter, the right hon. Lady pointed out that one of the exemptions that we have introduced relates to when you can cross the road in the UK when a traffic light seems to suggest that you cannot. Under the Vienna convention, we would not normally be able to do that but we have been able to amend it. So there is an argument, which the right hon. Lady has not made, that this legislation is not necessary to achieve the end that she is trying to achieve.

The right hon. Lady also referred to the fee of between £2,000 and £3,000. She made the legitimate point that some charities would like to be able to use minibuses which, when they are fully loaded, go over the 3.5-tonne limit, and that the £2,000 to £3,000 fee is a significant one that can impede them in doing the work that we all want them to do. However, that matter is in the power of Government without any need for legislation.

A further point is that the Government have consulted on this measure, as the right hon. Lady said, but have decided not to proceed. It would be useful if the Government were able to tell us why they have not chosen to proceed. My suspicion is that it is because they believe that this measure would not be safe.

The right hon. Lady said that she wanted to extend the length of time for which a licence is provided. That would clearly be in direct contravention of the Vienna convention. Presently it is set at 10 years, and I personally think that that is the safest way to ensure that every driver on the road in this country has a valid driving licence that is up to date and has the correct address on it, and that the person is properly insured. I am sure many of us have come across cases in our constituencies in which people have been financially disadvantaged because the crash they were involved in was with somebody who did not have a proper driving licence, perhaps because it was out of date and they were not properly insured. The right hon. Lady’s measure would drive a coach and horses through that, if you will forgive the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Another issue is that in recent years we have had a significant problem with getting enough HGV drivers in the UK. I believe that this measure would make that substantially more difficult, adding costs to businesses up and down the country. It would make it more difficult because many of the present HGV drivers on British roads are not British; they are of other nationalities. If we had a separate set of regulations for the UK—completely separate from the rest of the European Union—it would make it more difficult for businesses to do their work and create an additional layer of regulatory burden, which is a cost to businesses.

My final point is that there are 78 private Members’ Bills listed on the Order Paper that will be called for Second Reading on 23 February, 1 March, 15 March or 22 March, all of which are before the final date for calling a general election on 2 May. I do not think that a single one of them will enter the statute book. There are actually 26 in the name of Members called Christopher, and I feel rather left out that not one of them comes from myself. The serious point is that we keep putting more Bills on to the Order Paper but not putting them on to the statute book, because we still have a system for ten-minute rule Bills and private Members’ Bills that is completely and utterly bust. The Procedure Committee has said time and again that we are bringing the whole process into disrepute, and that is why we should not be adding yet another ten-minute rule Bill to the Order Paper when we have no intention of putting it on the statute book. I therefore urge all hon. Members to vote against the measure today.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23).

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Speaker]

Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the No Lobby?

Debate on the Address

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 7th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister give way? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members have the right to intervene. If the Prime Minister wishes to give way, that is up to the Prime Minister. If he wishes not to do so, that is also fine.

[The Prime Minister]

We can compare and contrast—

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Will the Prime Minister give way? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Prime Minister is not giving way.

G20 Summit

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Monday 11th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Surely one of the things that should keep the Prime Minister awake at night—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Unfortunately, a Member behind the hon. Member for Rhondda feels that he should be taken first. Let me just say that the hon. Gentleman is second on the list of members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and is also one of its longest-serving members.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

As I was saying, Mr Speaker—seconds out, round 2—the one thing that should keep the Prime Minister, or any Minister, awake at night is the arbitrary detention of a British national in a foreign country. One would hope that Ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, would summon up every ounce of energy to try to get people released. I am sorry, but I think that quite a lot of us are very depressed by the Prime Minister’s answer to the question from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), about Jagtar Singh Johal, who has been arbitrarily detained for six years. Everyone knows that he is being tortured and mistreated. I took the Prime Minister to say that he had not called for his release. Is that really the truth?

UK Concussion Guidelines for Grassroots Sport

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Chris Bryant.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for granting this urgent question.

Sport is indeed good for us, but as we have seen from countless footballing legends and rugby league and union players, repeated sporting concussions and sub-concussive events can lead to depression, anxiety, suicide and early-onset dementia. I have seen tough men weep and heard from sporting stars with no memory of their victories and triumphs. I am therefore delighted that the Government have worked hard to produce these guidelines. I pay tribute to Professor James Calder and the team, to the Minister and to Dawn Astle, Alix Popham, Steve Thompson and Peter Robinson, who have campaigned for all this to happen.

However, I do have some concerns. These guidelines rightly say:

“If in doubt, sit them out.”

That is what to do after a brain injury on the pitch, but what are we going to do about preventing brain injuries in the first place? Should we not look at further limiting youngsters heading the ball in football and curtailing rugby training sessions that include tackling? Why is there no reference to multiple concussions? Surely a young person who suffers two or more concussions in a 12-month period must be referred to a specialist. Why is there no recommendation that medical approval be sought before a return to play? That is weaker than the Scottish guidance. How do the guidelines align with existing ones, such as in boxing and equestrianism?

What about elite sport? The sporting bodies have shown a shocking disregard for the health of their own professional players for far too many years. If they do not act, should we not legislate for a duty of brain injury care? How can we ensure we get reliable statistics on brain injury in sport when nearly one in five rugby league players say that they deliberately did not report a concussion last year lest they be not allowed to play?

How do we get schools to understand concussion and brain injury better? Would it not be better to say “brain injury” rather than “concussion” because that is what it actually is? How can we ensure far greater co-ordination of research into concussion in sport, for instance through saliva tests and new generations of mouthguards, and especially into concussion in women’s sport? Are we sure that we have enough rehabilitation services for those with more serious injuries?

Brain injury is a hidden epidemic. We cannot normally see it. Let us do everything we can to prevent brain injuries, spot them, understand them, treat them and give people back the best possible quality of life.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Christopher Bryant.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the email you just sent to us all, which announces that the new Clerk of the House is going to be Tom Goldsmith. I am grateful to have the opportunity to be the first to congratulate him.

[Mr Speaker]

You missed the statement!

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Oh, I missed the statement—I am terribly sorry. I am useless; resign instantly. Anyway, I am congratulating him.

It is very important that rural communities look like rural communities. One of the things that we did in the 1945 Labour Government was to insist that people could not put advertising hoardings up along motorways outside towns. Unfortunately, lots of farmers these days are wheeling advertising hoardings along by motorways, which is dangerous for drivers on motorways. Is it not time that we put a stop to it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Christopher Bryant.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The reason the British countryside looks different when driving down the motorway is that the Labour Government in 1945 banned out-of-town advertising hoardings. Why have the Government allowed them to start appearing on every single motorway in the land? When will they get rid of these horrible excrescences?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Bryant. [Interruption.]

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Q7. I will not be bullied into silence by anybody in this House.With the highest peacetime tax rates, food inflation running at 11.6%, mortgage rates rising dramatically and a £50 billion hole in the public finances, the Prime Minister knows that Britain is broke. What is it about 12 years of Tory rule and his five years as a Minister that has made such a mess of Britain?

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That is not a point of order, as you well know. That was a poor effort; you are better than that normally.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is further to the point of order made by the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). You are, of course, quite right that it is not for you to comment on internal communications among Conservative MPs. However, by tradition, when a motion is declared a motion of confidence by the Government, the Prime Minister makes that announcement at some point during the debate. Is there any means whereby the Prime Minister could do so today? That is how I understand it and, as I look across to the faces on the Conservative Benches, they all seem to think that it is a motion of confidence.

Historically, lots of different things have been made confidence motions, including the conduct of war and various Bills. Traditionally, every single time that happened and the Government lost, that led to a general election. Is that not just factually correct?

[Mr Speaker]

You have certainly put that on the record. I would say, once again, let us wait and see what unfolds this afternoon. We will see where we go from there.

Replacement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Is it relevant to the question? [Interruption.] If it is relevant, I will take the point of order.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. You know that for the past hour we have been listening to questions that were meant to be directed to the Prime Minister. The Leader of the House said repeatedly that there were reasons why she could not be here. If there were legitimate reasons, I am sure that every single Member of the House would want to hear them. Now that the Prime Minister has arrived, would this not be a perfect opportunity for her to explain why she could not be here?

[Mr Speaker]

Let us put this to bed. It is not for me but for the Government to put forward Ministers to respond to urgent questions once they are granted. It is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Member has put the point on the record, and I note that the Prime Minister is now in her place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Fresh fruit and vegetables are very important to everybody’s diet. We would like more people, especially people from poorer households, to be able to afford more. One of the problems is that we do not have enough people in the UK now to pick the British crop of fresh fruit and vegetables. How will we ensure that that happens?

Can we also ensure that fresh fruit and vegetables from overseas can get to supermarkets faster? I do not know what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s experience is when he buys peppers, courgettes, onions or potatoes, but my experience these days is that they have all gone off by the time I get home.

[Mr Speaker]

Come to Chorley market; they are nice and fresh.

[Chris Bryant]

It’s a bit of a long way from the Rhondda.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about access to ambient and fresh food for all of us. I know that the Home Secretary is in constant discussion with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the industry about the provision and balance of labour that we encourage to come to the country to help us with summer harvesting, for example. We also need to work hard to ensure that the bulk of our imported fresh food gets here quickly and can enter the supply chain extremely quickly. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and I will work closely over the summer to ensure that our short, straight supply lines are maintained as efficiently as possible.

I have a small domestic tip for the hon. Gentleman that I learned from a friend who works in the industry. It is extremely important that the chill chain is maintained. If he can get chilled food as quickly as possible into his fridge, it will last a lot longer than if he leaves it hanging around and then chills it again. That is particularly true of dairy products.

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has said repeatedly that there is an investigation ongoing. He has absolutely no means of knowing that, because the ICGS process is entirely confidential, and indeed it is important that it is kept confidential. Even the fact that there is an investigation is confidential. I hope that you can confirm that, Mr Speaker, because it is so important to the victims, in particular.

[Mr Speaker]

I can concur that that is correct. It is on the record and it is there for others to note when we have further debates so that they take it into account.

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Thursday 9th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)]

I would be more than happy; apologies to the right hon. Lady. I was trying to say that Sir Robert Francis QC delivered his compensation framework study on 14 March, and that has been published and will be considered by the inquiry on 11 and 12 July. I apologise if I misled her. I know that the Government are very keen to support people affected by infected blood. She is undoubtedly a champion of this cause. The Government are committed to working with her to resolve this matter.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. While we have the Leader of the House on the move, may I add to what I said earlier about the National Security Bill? Having a debate only on Report on 30 or 40 new clauses introduced in the middle of a Committee stage is not the same: normally in Committee stage, the Opposition have an opportunity to probe. Could you urge him to move a little bit further on this, Mr Speaker, so that we can have a proper debate on the Floor of the House? This is about the security of Parliament.

[Mr Speaker]

I am obviously not going to extend questions, which the hon. Gentleman did very well then, but I am sure everybody has heard what he has had to say.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Normally I would not, but I think this is an important matter, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me know at the start of questions that he wanted to catch my eye. Although the issue he has raised is not strictly a point of order, I am of course alarmed to hear what he has reported to the Chamber. Rather than give a knee-jerk reaction now, I am sure that the Government will rapidly be assessing the implications of this move. I am therefore asking them to keep me and the House authorities briefed on this very important issue, and I shall make sure that Members are kept informed as appropriate.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am distressed that I am not on the list—I am also slightly surprised. I can assume only that the Russian Federation accepts that everything I have said about President Putin over the past few years is true: he is a barbarous villain and we must make sure that he fails.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman may now have got himself put on that list.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member makes a good point. We have had some discussions about that issue outside the Chamber. The difficulty is that I am not sure that is a matter for the Standards Committee or the Privileges Committee; I think it is a matter for the Committee on Procedure. There is a good argument for putting something in place so that there is a right of reply. I cannot go further, for reasons of which the hon. Gentleman may be aware—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not want to open up that area of debate. I know exactly what is going on—we can leave that part of it there.

[Chris Bryant]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

My second point about fair process is that it is actually quite a high bar that the Privileges Committee will have to consider. As the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, I do not think it is debated that the House was misled. I think even the Prime Minister admits, in effect, that the House was misled. It was said that rules were not broken and it is self-evident that rules were broken, so the House was misled—it got a false impression. The question is whether that was intentional. The Committee will have to devise ways to investigate whether there was an intention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I think the hon. Gentleman is agreeing with me, so—

[Mr Speaker]

We will leave it at that.

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

You have absolutely put it on record that Alex Salmond is no longer the leader of the SNP. That was many years ago and, as I understand it, he is now a member of the Alba party. That has now been corrected and I am sure everyone is aware of it.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall that, yesterday, I raised a point of order about the Prime Minister saying to the House that Roman Abramovich had been sanctioned when it turned out that he had not been. I gather that the Prime Minister has now corrected the record. I wonder whether there is a means of ensuring that, tomorrow, Hansard is printed in gold letters, or red letters, because that is the first time. It is particularly exciting that it has only taken a Russian billionaire to get the Prime Minister to correct the record.

[Mr Speaker]

I think it has just been gold-plated. It has certainly been registered and you will be able to read it tomorrow.

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope that the Prime Minister will stay for a brief moment, as this point of order relates to what he said about Roman Abramovich. [Interruption.] I do not think that it is a courtesy to the House when the Prime Minister leaves in that way.

The Prime Minister said that Roman Abramovich has been sanctioned. As I understand it, that is not true. I am sure that the Prime Minister was completely inadvertent in giving a false indication, but it would be helpful if he were able to correct the record. I wonder, Mr Speaker, whether you can make sure that he either does so or puts a letter in the Library to correct the record. These are important moments of fact.

[Mr Speaker]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not responsible for the answers given by Ministers. Those sitting on the Government Front Bench have heard his point of order. If a correction is necessary, I am sure that it will be forthcoming, ASAP.

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. These are very sensitive issues and, as I set out in my opening remarks ahead of Northern Ireland questions, Members should exercise caution in referring to historical troubles-related deaths. In this case, the details of the case and the names of those involved have not been referred to and nothing disorderly has occurred, but Members’ views are now on the record. May I take this opportunity to remind the House that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language? Perhaps we can learn from this point of order.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you will know, during the evacuation from Afghanistan many hon. Members were concerned about constituents who had loved ones stuck in Afghanistan. One issue that arose was how it came to be that Pen Farthing and Nowzad were allowed to evacuate animals while there were still people stuck in Afghanistan.

The Prime Minister said on 26 August that he had “no influence” on that particular case and nor would it be right. On 7 December, he was asked “Did you intervene to get Pen Farthing’s animals out?” He said, “No, that is complete nonsense.” And the Downing Street spokesperson said, “Neither the Prime Minister nor Mrs Johnson was involved.“ Yet today, as I think you are aware, Mr Speaker, the Foreign Affairs Committee has published a letter from Lord Goldsmith’s office saying,

“the PM has just authorised their staff and animals to be evacuated”.

How can I get to the bottom of who is telling the truth?

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Members will know how much correspondence we had on this. In the light of what is happening at the moment, people are very interested in the discrepancies between what the Prime Minister says to journalists versus what is revealed in this House. I seek your advice on how we can ensure that such discrepancies are clarified to Members of Parliament.

Metropolitan Police: Stephen Port Murders Inquest

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That seems to have been aimed at me, but I just say that I granted an urgent question because there was no statement.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

And well done you, Mr Speaker.

The Minister has said repeatedly that he has reassured himself, but he has not reassured me—if anything, quite the opposite. He keeps referring to this as a “tragedy”, but it is not a tragedy; it is a double-layered gay hate crime. I wish he would actually use those words. It has been a double-layered gay hate crime. First there were the original murders, and then there was the refusal to investigate them, which in itself is a gay hate crime. It is about time we took this seriously, not least because homophobic hate crimes in the past three years have risen to 1,833 a month. That is why a lot of gay men in this country are beginning to feel frightened. The Government have got to do something. Get on with it!

Committee on Standards

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

If it is all right, I just want to respond directly to the point that has just been made. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

I would like to hear what the hon. Gentleman has got to say before we make a judgment.

[Mr Speaker]

Let me help. It is not going to be direct; I think it is direct to the point that was made to you, Leader of the House. I think we can dance around on the head of a pin, but that is not going to be helpful in a very important debate today.

[Chris Bryant]

I just wanted to make a simple point, which is that we reviewed and read all the witness statements. Nobody asked to make an oral witness statement to us. It is perfectly normal in most workplaces in this country, as a retired High Court judge confirmed to me yesterday, for witness statements to be read and considered, and not necessarily for witnesses to be questioned or cross-examined. We did a perfectly normal, fair hearing for the right hon. Member for North Shropshire. We considered all the witness statements and we published them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I think we’ll move on. [Laughter.]

[Chris Bryant]

I think he got the easier job.

I have not done any radio or television interviews on this matter because, as Chair of the Committee, I am a servant of the House. I thank the Commissioner and the Committee. In particular, I wish the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) well, because he is very ill at the moment. I hope that he will be back with us soon. It is inappropriate for people to comment on absences from the Committee when they do not understand why members might be absent.

I am painfully conscious that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) lost his wife in tragic circumstances in June 2020. I wish to express my sincere condolences to him. I have known suicide in my family, as he knows, and I have performed many funerals for suicides. I know the grief, the anguish, and often the guilt that is associated. The last year must have been very distressing for him, and the Committee took those circumstances fully into account when considering his conduct.

I will address the charges, the process, the sanction and the amendment. The charges are very serious. The Member repeatedly, over a sustained period, lobbied officials and Ministers on behalf of his paying clients, Randox and Lynn’s Country Foods, from whom he was receiving more than £9,000 a month, as he still is. He pursued their commercial interests. When they could not get meetings with officials and Ministers, he used his privileged position as a Member of Parliament to secure them. Providing privileged access is a valuable service.

The Member promoted what he called “Randox’s superior technology”. He wanted the Government to use Randox’s calibration system. He repeatedly used his taxpayer-funded parliamentary office for commercial meetings. That is paid lobbying. In some shape or form, it has been banned since 1695 and expressly so since cash for questions, which brought this House into terrible disrepute in the 1990s. One Conservative Member described it to me as a “catalogue of bad behaviour”. I have yet to meet a Conservative MP who has not said to me, “He clearly broke the rules.” I think that includes the Leader of the House.

The Member says that he was raising serious wrongs, but he did not say so at the time. If they were truly serious, one might have expected him to write articles or do media interviews, as he was perfectly entitled to do. He did not. He did the one thing that he was banned from doing: lobby Ministers time and again in a way that conferred a direct benefit on his paying clients. That is expressly forbidden. It is a corrupt practice.

On the process, the Member has had a fair hearing. We had legal advice from Speaker’s Counsel throughout. As one former High Court judge said to me yesterday,

“the procedure is consistent with natural justice and similar or identical to workplaces up and down the country.”

We on the Committee spent many hours reviewing the evidence in this case without fear or favour. The Member had prior notice of the charges and the evidence against him at every stage. He had his legal advisers with him. The Committee invited him to make his appeal against the commissioner’s findings in writing and in person, and I hope he would confirm that we gave him every opportunity to make his case to us and that the session was conducted respectfully and fairly. I think he is nodding.

The Member has said that his witnesses should have been interviewed. Natural justice requires that witnesses be heard, but that does not necessarily mean that they must be heard orally or cross-examined. We did what many courts and tribunals do every day of the week: we reviewed all the witness statements, took them into consideration and published them in full.

The Member claims that the commissioner had made up her mind before she sent her memorandum. That is completely to misunderstand the process. As the commissioner has done in every other case, she started an investigation and invited the Member to meet her and/or to submit evidence. Once she had completed her investigation and, by definition, found on a preliminary basis that there had been a breach of the rules, she submitted a memorandum to him for his comments, and then to the Committee. That is when we heard his appeal, in writing and in person.

I turn to the sanction. As the Committee says in the report:

“Each of Mr Paterson’s several instances of paid advocacy would merit a suspension of several days, but the fact that he has repeatedly failed to perceive his conflict of interest and used his privileged position as a Member of Parliament to secure benefits for two companies for whom he was a paid consultant, is even more concerning. He has brought the House into disrepute.”

A Conservative colleague whom I respect a great deal said to me on Monday that justice should always be tempered by mercy. I agree. But justice also demands no special favours.

These are the precedents that we considered: Patrick Mercer was suspended for six months; the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) for 30 days; Jonathan Sayeed for 14 days; and George Galloway for 18 days. When Geoffrey Robinson failed to provide proper responses to the commissioner and Committee, he was suspended for a month. This case is just as serious because it involved at least 14 instances. It was a pattern of behaviour, and the Member has said time and again over the last week that he would do the same again tomorrow. If the House were therefore to vote down or water down the sanction, or to carry the amendment, it would be endorsing his action. We would be dismantling the rule on paid advocacy, which has been around in some shape or form since 1695. I am afraid that the public would think of us as the Parliament that licensed cash for questions.

Let me turn to the amendment. I have worked with the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) on many things; I think she is very wrong today. It is the very definition of injustice that one should change the rules or the process at the very last moment, and to do so for a named individual. That is what the amendment does. Retrospective legislation to favour or damage an individual because they are a friend or a foe is immoral and the polar opposite of the rule of law. That is why, as the Leader of the House knows, I spoke and voted with Conservative Members when we were considering a retrospective motion to subject the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) to a recall petition. The amendment should fail on that basis alone—it is the opposite of due process.

The amendment purports to set up an appeal process, but an appellate body must be independent and every single member of the body will be parti pris, by definition. They will have been whipped and taken a view today. They will almost certainly have voted. The proposed Chair, by agreeing to have his name put forward, is already not independent. I point out gently to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire that it was her motion as Leader of the House on 7 January 2019 that set up the Standards Committee in its present form. At that time, she said that

“a greater element of independence was required, and that having seven lay members and seven parliamentary Members on the Standards Committee…provides the right balance—having the memory and the corporate understanding of being in this place, while at the same time ensuring that we can benefit from the experience and knowledge of independent lay members.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 128.]

The body she proposes today will have no independent members—no independence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

Just to let people know, I am not going to continue the debate. We have been through the debate, but I think that this might be a point of clarification, and I am happy to accept it in that light.

[Chris Bryant]

It is a very simple one, Mr Speaker. I do not want to delay the House. Some people have asked whether the Standards Committee continues to exist. It does, and we will be meeting on Tuesday morning. I will still be its Chair.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that any hon. Member is truly honourable if they serve on this new Committee. Therefore I want my constituents to know that no Member of Parliament serves on this corrupt Committee in my name.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just say that there is some disappointment that we did not get through the list? I appeal to the party leaders to see whether we can speed up so that we can hear from those Members who might otherwise miss out.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

No. Points of order do not come now, they normally come after the urgent question. You know that better than anybody. You are the expert. You are Mr Protocol. You know better than me.

Personal Statement

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, I am utterly mortified by the events of last week when my heckling interrupted proceedings during Prime Minister’s questions and when I challenged the authority of the Chair. I entered into an altercation with the Chair and I did not treat the Chair with due respect. That is unacceptable. I apologise unreservedly to the House and to you personally, Mr Speaker. I really wish none of this had ever occurred and I fully accept that my conduct was unacceptable.

[Mr Speaker]

May I say that I accept the hon. Member’s apology? I am content that that draws a line under the matter.

Virtual Participation in Debate

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think everybody in here knows exactly what the outcome is of what is going on. I do not think that we need to reiterate the obvious.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Speaker, but let me make the point clear. I am moving the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay and myself.

It is worth bearing in mind what Members are not able to take part in. I have heard very moving and important speeches by Conservative Members, saying that this year has seen a phenomenal suspension of liberty in this country—extraordinary. The Coronavirus Act 2020 has taken power away from individuals to live their lives as they want more than any other piece of legislation in our history. We subscribed to that because we believed that it was necessary. The Government insisted that they should require only a single vote every six months on a 90-minute debate, but the Members whom we are talking about are not able to take part in those 90-minute debates—to be honest, not many other people are able to take part in those 90-minute debates either.

If we look at the secondary legislation, we will see that, during this year, there have been 297 coronavirus statutory instruments, using powers in 106 Acts of Parliament. Why should none of the Members whom we are talking about be able to take part in any of that secondary legislation when it is depriving people of their liberty? More importantly, it is not about the Member; it is about the community that they represent—their constituency. Why should they be barred, for instance, from expressing a view about the 10 o’clock curfew in pubs, or whether their constituency should be in tier 1, tier 2 or tier 3? They are not able to take part in ten-minute rule Bills. They are not able to make points of order, which must be a terribly depressing thing for all of them—how can you live without making points of order? Ironically enough, they are able to table amendments, but they are not able then to speak to them. That is the irony of where we are at tonight. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay can table an amendment, but he is not able to take part in this debate because of the way that things have been structured.

I say to all hon. Members, first of all, I do not buy this argument about the perfect being the enemy of the good. Earlier today, I understand that the Government Whips tried to strong-arm the Opposition, saying, “Well, you’ll never get what you want. We’ll pull the motion.” But the Leader of the House said that he would enable the House to resolve this. The proper way to resolve this is to have a proper motion on the Order Paper when all Members know that the debate is coming and we can consider the thing properly.

Secondly, I believe that all MPs are equal—the good, the bad, the ugly. All of them are equal. It is a really important principle.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

And we mustn’t forget the Vicar of Dibley.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I have “follow me, follow, down to the hollow” ringing through my head now.

May I ask, I am afraid, about the Select Committee on Standards? As the Leader of the House knows, the Standards Committee is meant to have a majority of lay members who are able to vote. We have a lot of very important businesses; we have already done 11 reports in this Parliament and we have a major review of the code of conduct going on. We need a full quota of lay members. I am really grateful to the Leader of the House for tabling the single motion, which is down on the remaining orders, that would allow for Melanie Carter and Michael Maguire to be added to the Committee. I know that Standing Orders say we have to have a one-hour debate. Can I do a deal with the Leader of the House? If I promise that I will not speak in that debate and he promises that he will just move the motion very quickly, we could have a very short debate, and maybe we could get that done very quickly so that the Standards Committee can get on with its job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seriously worried about the Leader of the House’s answer about the Standards Committee, because we do need to be fully functioning. It is in the interests of the reputation of the House that we have all seven lay members appointed. It is nearly six months now since we went down to five lay members instead of seven. It is three months since the Commission, which you yourself chair, Mr Speaker, agreed the names that came forward through a process in which I was not involved at all. I note that the legislation says that the motion can be brought forward by any member of the Commission, but I wonder whether there is any means of you making sure that we are able to function fully as soon as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but what I will say is that the Leader of the House has heard what has been said. I do not want to continue the debate from earlier, which, as an expert like yourself knows, I should not be doing. I do not want to make any further comment, so we shall leave it at that.

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for a few minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Tomorrow.

[Mr Speaker]

It is actually Mark Menzies now.

Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Monday 6th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I’ve not stopped.

[Mr Speaker]

You better had.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Thursday 2nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is very clear now that if the easing of the lockdown is to be effective in tackling coronavirus, it will happen at different paces in the different nations of the United Kingdom but also in different parts within those nations. We see the situation in Leicester, and there may be others—who knows—and we know that some sectors will be affected for longer than others. The Leader of the House rightly said that where the state says a business cannot operate, the state should step in to provide financial assistance. I heard what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), but I do not understand whether the statement from the Chancellor next Wednesday will be just a 10-minute statement with questions for perhaps an hour—in that case, I urge him to make it more like three hours—or one with a proper series of debates so that we can get into the nitty-gritty. By the way, can I still have my £2.5 million for the tip in Tylorstown?

[Mr Speaker]

May I help a little? It will be a minimum 20 minutes from the Chancellor, and it will be run long, with many more questions than normal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

It is morning, not evening!

[Mr Speaker]

It is usually afternoon when the House sits. Carry on!

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

As the hon. Lady knows, that is not a matter for the Chair. The business of the House is for the Chamber to decide. No doubt today there will be an opportunity to raise the matter, and I would have thought that Business Questions on Thursday would be a good place to raise it with the Leader of the House. That will allow him to tell us what measures he will be putting in place, if any.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Where did you come from, Mr Bryant? You were not there a minute ago. Come on then.

[Chris Bryant]

This is the new normal, Mr Speaker.

As you know, you, as Speaker, are defender of the liberties and freedoms of MPs— Government Members and Back Benchers, everybody equally. One of the historic liberties that the Speaker has always sought is not only freedom of speech but the freedom to attend and participate, which is why the House in the 14th century, 16th century, 17th century and at many other times has insisted that no Member of Parliament can be arrested by the Crown, except on indictable offences, and thereby prevented from attending Parliament.

The law at the moment requires—not just advises, but requires—those who are shielding or who have shielding responsibilities not to leave their home and therefore not to be able to come to Parliament if they are Members of Parliament. Mr Speaker, I just wonder what your feeling is about the liberties of this House if significant numbers of our Members are prevented from participating in debate or in Divisions by virtue of the decisions of the Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I will say that my sympathy is with those people who are shielding or who are of a certain age who cannot attend the House. I have been very clear and have put that on the record, but the business of the House is a matter for the Government, as we well know. They set the agenda. What I would say is that I hope those conversations are taking place now to try to come to an arrangement. I hope that those conversations will be very fruitful and done as quickly as possible, but there is a decision for the House to take, the House can take control of it, and there is no better champion than the hon. Gentleman to lead that.

What I would say is, let those discussions continue. I do believe there is a way to move forward. I think there needs to be a bit of give and take from different sides in order for the House to progress and to ensure that nobody’s franchise is taken away. We are working very hard to try to see how we can help with the voting system to match that as well. I am not going to take any further points of order on that; I think the House has time to deal with it later. I will now suspend the House for five minutes.

Standards

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who has been a magnificent Chair of the Standards Committee for several years. Whether I am able to fill her shoes, others will be able to determine, not I.

I am enormously grateful to the Leader of the House for being able to bring forward this motion as soon as possible. I should point out, though, that I was not involved in preparing this report nor in hearing any of the evidence; it was the previous Committee that came to its set of conclusions. Consequently, I am, in the main, merely going to reiterate the points that have already been made, but in the words of the report itself. The Committee concluded:

“Like the Commissioner, we are persuaded by the evidence that”

the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns)

“used his parliamentary position in an attempt to intimidate a member of the public into doing as”

the right hon. Member

“wished in a dispute relating to purely private family interests which had no connection with”

the right hon. Member’s

“parliamentary duties.”

Consequently, the Committee recommended that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West

“should be suspended from the service of the House for seven days. This penalty reflects our view that the abuse of privilege for personal or family gain cannot be viewed as anything but a serious failure to uphold the values and principles of the House of Commons Code of Conduct”.

As the Leader of the House said, the Committee also recommended that the right hon. Member

“should apologise in writing to the House for his breaches of the Code of Conduct by way of a letter to”

you,

“Mr Speaker, and that he should apologise in writing to the complainant as the injured party.”



I have seen copies of both of those letters, as indeed I think you have, Mr Speaker, and I am sure the Committee will be satisfied with the way the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West has fulfilled those obligations.

As the Leader of the House said, it is of course entirely regrettable when such moments occur, but it is important that the House can uphold its code of conduct and take action when it thinks it necessary. I am entirely convinced that the report produced by the Committee and the Commissioner is fully in line with the highest standards that the House would expect of the Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

I can confirm that I have received the letter. I call the Leader of the House to reply to the debate for no more than five minutes.

BILL PRESENTED

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Several Bills were just presented, but the one Bill that has not yet been presented is the one that the Government have talked about extensively, which is the emergency legislation on coronavirus. It is said that the Bill will be published tomorrow and we will deal with it on Monday. I hope that there will be a process whereby it is possible to table amendments before Second Reading, which is not the normal convention but is possible for emergency legislation. If the Government seriously intend this legislation to last for two years, I hope we will be able to table amendments to suggest that that could only be done with a review by Parliament on a regular basis.

[Mr Speaker]

That is on the Order Paper, and I am sure there will be time to table amendments. The message will have been taken on board that that should be made available.

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Standing Order No. 2A sets out the rules on the election of Deputy Speakers. There is a secret ballot. Candidates are in alphabetical order. Members can vote for as many or as few candidates on the ballot paper as they wish, marking the candidates in order of preference. Ballots are counted under the single transferable vote. Nominations close at 6 pm this afternoon—so we will know the list, which may help. See paragraph 10 of the briefing notes—Members each have one vote, which is transferable. The wording will be on the ballot paper, with an explanation of that. What time it is declared will depend on the count and how quick that is, but obviously, other business will defer the announcement of it. My understanding is that the vote takes place between 10 am and 1.30 pm, as I stated earlier—I pointed out what time the ballot is open. Hopefully, that is helpful to Members and we can move on, as we have a long night ahead of us.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is about elections, but not those elections, I am afraid. As you will know, members of the new Government were appointed on 24 July last year. Many of them have yet to face a Select Committee grilling, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary. The Leader of the House’s office at the moment is telling the press that it is unlikely that Select Committees will be in place before Easter. That would mean that those Ministers would have ruled this country for nine months without ever facing a grilling from a Select Committee. Is there anything in your power that you can do to make sure that this process is expedited, so that the proper duties of scrutiny can be done by this House?

[Mr Speaker]

I would like to think that a conversation will take place between the usual channels, and anything that I can do to help to ensure that we get Committees up and running, I will. I think that it is better for the House and it gives Members a real interest in getting their teeth into holding the Government to account and making sure that Select Committees are effective. [Interruption.] I hear one voice saying, “I have done two already.” Some may not have, but others have certainly carried out their duties.

Exiting the European Union (Sanctions)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman has virtually stolen the words out of my mouth. He is absolutely right, but my anxiety is that when we are no longer in that room, it is going to be much more difficult for the UK to secure the outcome that we want in relation to Nord Stream 2. I hope that the Government will manage to find some means of establishing a strong relationship with the European Union in that regard.

I also worry about the Magnitsky process. I hear what the Minister is saying, but I have heard two Ministers speak on this subject since the House unanimously passed measures that the Government did not really want to include in the legislation—[Interruption.] I know that the Minister put them in in the end, but I am not sure that he was the most enthusiastic Member to adopt them. He can puff out his chest as much as he wants, but he is still not going to persuade me that he was quite there with the rest of us. The point is that we still do not have those measures in place. As he has referred to the Magnitsky process, I hope that we will now manage to sort this out very quickly, not least because Bill Browder has today been told that the Russians intend to press a seventh charge with Interpol—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I did say that we could open the envelope, but I did not mean that we had to open every page of what was inside. Today’s debate is not about Russia. I have allowed a little bit of movement, but we need to get a lot more speakers in.

[Chris Bryant]

You are quite right, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am very close to finishing.

In making my last point, about Venezuela, I want to defend my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). The hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and I agree on nearly every aspect of our relationship with many different countries in Latin America, including Venezuela. That country is perpetuating poverty for its people and its politicians have completely let the people down. They are also risking civil war and war across the whole Andean region, which is dangerous. However, in all honesty, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland was agreeing with the hon. Gentleman, not disagreeing with him, so I very much hope that they will kiss and make up later. With that, I shall finish.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 5, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) Before making any regulations under subsection (3)(b), the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on—

(a) the likely effects of the provisions of this Act on persons undergoing rehabilitation for brain injuries, and

(b) the interaction between the provisions of this Act and the processes for prescribing for brain injury rehabilitation therapy.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 5 to 32.

Amendment 2, in schedule 1, page 15, line 24, at end insert—

“(d) the effects of any treatment undergone by the cared-for person, including prescription brain injury rehabilitation therapy.”

Government amendments 33 to 37.

Amendment 49, page 16, line, leave out from “out” to the end of line 16, and insert

“by the responsible body.”

This amendment would require the responsible body to carry out the consultation in all cases.

Government amendment 38.

Amendment 50, page 17, line 13, at end insert—

“(ca) the arrangements are being authorised under paragraph 16 of this Schedule, or”

This amendment would require an AMCP to review all cases where the responsible body is authorising arrangements based on a statement provided by a care home manager.

Government amendment 39.

Amendment 48, page 18, line 21, at end insert—

“Authorisation charges

24A No charges may be made in relation to the steps taken in determining whether the responsible body may authorise the arrangements for the cared-for person.”

Amendment 3, page 18, line 35, at end insert “or

(c) at the end of a period of prescription brain injury rehabilitation therapy undergone by the cared-for person.”

Amendment 4, page 20, line 4, after “met” insert

“taking into account any treatment to be undergone by the cared-for person, including prescription brain injury rehabilitation therapy.”

Government amendments 40 to 46.

Amendment 51, page 23, line 1, leave out paragraphs 39 and 40 and insert—

“39 (1) The responsible body must appoint an IMCA to represent and support the cared-for person if–

(a) one or more of sub-paragraphs (2), (3), (4) or (5) applies, and

(b) sub-paragraph (6) does not apply.

(2) The cared-for person makes a request to the responsible body for an IMCA to be appointed.

(3) The responsible body has not identified an ‘appropriate person’ to support and represent the cared-for person in matters connected with the authorisation.

(4) The responsible body has identified an ‘appropriate person’ to support and represent the cared for person in matters connected with the authorisation, and they have made a request to the responsible body for an IMCA to be appointed.

(5) The responsible body has reason to believe one or more of the following—

(a) that, without the help of an IMCA, the cared-for person and any appropriate person supporting and representing them would be unable to understand or exercise one or more of the relevant rights;

(b) that the cared-for person and any appropriate person supporting and representing them have each failed to exercise a relevant right when it would have been reasonable to exercise it;

(c) that the cared for person and any appropriate person supporting and representing them are each unlikely to exercise a relevant right when it would be reasonable to exercise it.

(6) The cared-for person objects to being represented and supported by an IMCA.

(7) A person is not to be regarded as an ‘appropriate person’ to represent and support the cared-for person in matters connected with this schedule unless—

(a) they consent to representing and supporting the cared-for person,

(b) they are not engaged in providing care or treatment for the cared-for person in a professional capacity,

(c) where the cared-for person is able to express a view about who they would like to represent and support them, the cared-for person agree to being represented and supported by that person,

(d) where the cared-for person is unable to express a view about who they would like to represent and support them, the responsible body has no reason to believe that the cared-for person would object to being represented and supported by that person,

(e) they are both willing and able to assist the cared-for person in understanding and exercising the relevant rights under this Schedule, including with the support of an IMCA if appropriate.

(8) The ‘relevant rights’ under this schedule include rights to request a review under Part III of this Schedule, and the right to make an application to the court to exercise its jurisdiction under section 21ZA of this Act.”

This amendment would broaden the provision of advocacy, ensuring that advocates are provided as a default unless the cared-for person does not want one.

Government amendment 47.

[Chris Bryant]

I will speak to amendment 1 and the three other amendments in my name and the names of several colleagues.

I want to start with enormous praise for the national health service, which in many cases makes the key decisions on everything that we will talk about today. Sometimes those are very difficult decisions, including for families, and they need to be managed with care and sensitivity. Ensuring that we have the right law in place to enable clinicians to make the right decisions is vital. I was on the Public Bill Committee for the Mental Health Act 2007 under the Labour Government, and I remember many of the rows and difficulties then. Ensuring that legislation fits the complicated circumstances of real life is not all that easy, and in particular, the definition of what might be proper treatment is not readily come by.

Often lobbyists get a really bad press. My experience of lobbyists in this field is entirely positive, including those working for the pharmaceutical industry, who do an amazing job in providing new drugs that can save people’s lives and manage their conditions much better, and the many charities in this field. When lobbyists are decried, I sometimes want to point out that they play an important part in ensuring that Members of Parliament know exactly what they are doing when it comes to legislation.

All the amendments that I have tabled relate to acquired brain injury. I am aware that several other colleagues who are members of the all-party parliamentary group on acquired brain injury are here today. I do not want to make an apology for that, but I want to explain why I have tabled these amendments. It is partly because I believe that acquired brain injury, though recognised and understood by some, is something of a hidden epidemic in Britain.

Something like 1.4 million people in this country are living with an acquired brain injury. A new person presents at accident and emergency with a brain injury every 90 seconds. Many of these injuries have lasting effects that are completely invisible to an ordinary member of the public. For instance, the person standing in front of us in a queue who is being difficult might look as if they are drunk or just being difficult, but they may have a brain injury. We would have no idea, and the person feels trapped and finds the situation as difficult as we do. The more we come to an understanding of acquired brain injury in this country, the better.

There are many different causes of brain injury, including road traffic accidents, accidents about the home and stroke. One cause that has been brought home to me recently is carbon monoxide poisoning. Not only the high level of carbon monoxide poisoning that follows an incident, but a sustained low level of carbon monoxide due to poor central heating systems or facilities or something like a Calor gas burner in a home, can end up causing a long-term brain injury. This particularly affects some of those who live in the worst housing in the land, and who are the poorest and least able to afford, for instance, to have their boiler mended or assessed every year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. One of the things about rugby league and about rugby union, which I know rather better, being from south Wales—[Interruption.] I do not think it is parliamentary to tut-tut from the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you don’t mind my saying so. The truth is that many of the players today are bigger, stronger and faster, so the impacts may be much more significant than they were in the past. Curiously, when we watch some of the commentary on Twitter and Facebook about matches, we see a kind of rejoicing in the physical pain that people are going through, and I think we really need to roll that back. We need to roll that back so that we are actually caring about the players. Quite often the players themselves will be desperate to go back on. It should not be the player who makes that decision; it should be an independent doctor who makes it. [Interruption.] I think you want to intervene on me, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

The tut-tut was to say that the hon. Gentleman would benefit from knowing both types of rugby. The only thing I would add, just to help his case, is that in rugby league a player is taken off for a full assessment by a doctor and not allowed back on. That is the benefit on which rugby league is leading the sport.

[Chris Bryant]

I am glad I took that intervention. It is unusual to get an intervention from the Chair, but I think we welcome this new style of chairing.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It was a clarification.

[Chris Bryant]

I am tempted to make a point of order! No—you are absolutely right, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The key thing is to have the same protocols for all sports, so that there is the same protection. A child might play rugby league one year and rugby union the next; if there are different protocols, that will undermine the whole system. Incidentally, the point also applies to a whole range of other sports—hockey and ice hockey, as well as American football, in which there is growing interest in the United Kingdom. We should not let the issue be led by litigation, which is what has happened in the United States of America: we should let it be led by the medical science, which is rapidly changing.

Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 27th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 4, page 4, line 23, leave out clause 4.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 5, page 6, line 6, leave out clause 5.

Amendment 6, page 8, line 14, leave out clause 6.

Amendment 7, in clause 7, page 9, line 37, leave out from “only,” to end of line 38.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.

Amendment 8, in title, line 3, leave out from “duty;” to “and” in line 6.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 4 to 6.

[Chris Bryant]

I will not delay the House long on these amendments, but I should explain why I tabled them. They would take three clauses out of the Bill, which I am fairly confident will have the support of the whole House.

Although these clauses are about the taking of samples, in particular when an emergency worker is in danger of contracting an infectious disease by virtue of being spat at or through some other means, the aim of the Bill was never to take samples. The aim of the Bill was always to stop spitting. Thanks to the Minister’s earlier interventions, and to today’s debate more generally, I think we have had a clear statement from Parliament that spitting is included as part of common assault or battery.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Points of order would normally come after statements, but I will use the Chair’s discretion and take the hon. Gentleman’s.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I wanted to raise this now because it relates to our earlier discussion about “Erskine May”. There was a bit of a difference of opinion as to whether “Erskine May” is online. It is available on the intranet, as a 1,000-page PDF, which expressly says it is not to be used by the public. What I am asking—I hope the commitment from the Leader of the House is clear—is that we now make it available to the whole country, because the people of this country are demanding that “Erskine May” be available to them without their having to buy a copy.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) might like to start a petition. Once he is able to show 100,000 signatures—no, I jest. Obviously he is absolutely right: everybody is clamouring in their living rooms for their own online copy of “Erskine May”. As I said to him earlier, I will look into this. I agree that it should be available online, and I will see what can be done.

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)]

I can only say again that I have absolute assurance that the statement was published at 10.30 am.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not alleging anything about the Leader of the House, but the truth of the matter is that the statement was not available on the parliamentary website, nor in the Vote Office, until 11.30 am. The only reason why this matters is that none of us would want the Leader of the House to be ill-advised by others and to be living in a state of ignorance about what is actually going on. Of course, the written ministerial statement was about the timeliness of responses, so it would seem appropriate to get it right.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I might be able to help. I am sure that the Leader of the House will take the point, that the timings will be put right and that nobody wants to mislead the House in any way, shape or form.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Thursday 13th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. What I said to the House is that through the usual channels I am aware that an Opposition day debate is being offered during that short sitting in September.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you clarify that there is a means by which the Leader of the House can correct the record? She has suggested today that it is utterly normal for us not to have Opposition day debates at this stage, but in fact in 2015, by the summer recess after the general election, we had already had five—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are not opening up the debate. The question has been dealt with and we will now move on.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a great delight to follow the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). She has shown from what she has said this afternoon and from when she was in office the level of expertise, interest and commitment that she has in this area of work. It is always a delight to hear from the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who, unusually, was a round peg in a round hole when he was appointed to the job, and he got a little bit rounder as the year went on. Seriously, though, it is a delight to hear from him.

We all know as Members of Parliament that we live in a digital economy, because we have so many emails from constituents and others. This email is not from a constituent, but I thought that I would share it with the House. It says:

“Dear RhonddaYfronts,

Just watched you and that other dull dishcloth of an MP on Daily Politics. You both sum up clearly why Labour will never win an election anytime soon. Uninspiring, pathetic career politicians with no substance or gravitas.

Finally, are you still on Gaydar, Grindr, or Scruff? If so, what’s your profile as I quite fancy you.”

Self-praise is no praise.

As the two former Secretaries of State have already acknowledged, the creative industries are absolutely essential to this country. They were worth £87.4 billion to the UK economy in 2015. Creativity lies at the heart of it all, which is why I welcome all the measures that relate to strengthening the intellectual property law. Some 355 million music tracks and 24 million films were illegally downloaded between March and May of this year. We do need to tackle that if we are to protect those who create that value—those who are at the imaginative heart of this country. My only question about clause 26 is whether the definition is strong enough, but that is a matter for us to deal with in Committee.

We also need a strong and independent BBC. This is one of my biggest disappointments with the Bill and everything that has happened since 2015. The BBC is funded by the licence fee in the main. Last year, that amounted to £3.6 billion. That sounds like a lot of money, but it is worth bearing in mind that Sky in that same year had a revenue of nearly £12 billion, three times as much, and £2 billion of profit. I do have one anxiety. I do not expect the former Secretary of State to respond to this, but I think that in his heart he agrees that it was entirely wrong and wholly inappropriate to put the payment of the over-75s’ licence fees on to the BBC. Even more importantly, a part of the Bill breaches the BBC’s fundamental independence, because it turns the BBC into an arm of the Department for Work and Pensions, and that is wholly to be deprecated. In time, I think that the Government will regret that. There is an element of cowardice in that, because if the Government want to get rid of the free television licences, they should do it themselves; it should be a manifesto commitment in a general election, and then they should proceed. To make the BBC carry out the decision-making process on who gets a concessionary licence is wholly wrong. Incidentally, the whole deal happened after a meeting between the former Chancellor and Rupert Murdoch. It just shows that nothing ever changes in this country.

May I just ask the Minister—I hope that he will be able to respond later—when will we get the draft charter? Lord Ashton of Hyde said in the House of Lords that its publication would be in September. I hope that the Government are not intending to publish it when the House is not sitting, but they therefore have only two more days, and then we are meant to have a debate in October. [Interruption.] The former Secretary of State will doubtless tell us. [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) will tell us later when he gets the chance.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Mr Vaizey, I was thinking of calling you next. If you want to go down the list, carry on and I will ensure that it happens.

[Chris Bryant]

It is always good—is it not, Mr Deputy Speaker?—to see the right hon. Gentleman doing abject.

The digital economy is important beyond just the creative industries. We have the highest rate of contribution to our GDP of any country in Europe. Some 11% of jobs in the UK are now related to the digital economy, and that part of the economy has grown two and a half times faster than any other part. The digital economy also plays to our national strength in terms of the English language, music, drama, sport and gaming. Nevertheless, I worry that the present Government—maybe we did it when we were in government as well—are always wanting to pat themselves on the back, when actually it will be difficult, despite constant striving, to ensure that everyone can participate. There are still lots of people who have just 2 megabits per second. There are people who, when they have 10 megabits per second, will have contention rates that make it very difficult indeed for them even to use iPlayer effectively. I hope that the ministerial team will not want to keep congratulating themselves.

As I said, in many rural areas, including in my constituency, 70% of people have no access to 4G. The former Prime Minister has now left the House, but his obsession with Polzeath was never matched by success, because Polzeath still has terrible mobile coverage. As far as I can see, unless someone wants to correct me, the mobile infrastructure project was a complete waste of money—£150 million spent on 75 masts. That is £2 million per mast, by my rough arithmetic, and that is if all of them were built. It would be nice to know what has happened there.

I support the measures on pornography, to protect young people from images that would be inappropriate for them, but I, like the right hon. Member for Maldon, think that it is too unclear how that will be achieved. If you just ask, “Are you over 18?” it is a bit like going to the United States of America and being asked, “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Nazi party of Germany between 1933 and 1945?” I suspect that not many people say yes.

The right hon. Member for Basingstoke is absolutely right about online abuse. I commend her for the work that she and others have done through her Committee and elsewhere. It is very important because many people, especially women, are finding that the internet is not a safe and happy place to be. It is far from happy. She is right that there is no clear definition of online abuse. The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines are inadequate and are preventing police from investigating in many instances where they should be taking action.

A Demos study earlier this year showed that in just three weeks, 6,500 women were called “slut” or “whore” in the UK on Twitter alone. Half of teachers now report that they receive online abuse either from parents—which is scandalous enough—or from their own pupils, and very little action is taken.

Many Jewish colleagues in the House have had absolutely hideous abuse—the kind of abuse that one would have thought ended in 1945, yet it now seems to be around as part of a supposedly acceptable political discourse.

There are real jurisdictional problems. I reported an instance relating to someone who was making death threats to me into my office and, more importantly, wanted to put antifreeze in halal meat in Sainsbury’s. When an attempt was made to prosecute, because the person was based in Germany, the German police refused to act, on the basis that it was just a British politician being attacked by a British national who happened to be in Berlin. I hope that the Government will examine some of these jurisdictional issues. Facebook, Apple and many others are far too slow in co-operating with the police, and I believe that what counts as evidence of ownership of a site is far too indistinct.

The internet can be an echo chamber, turning mild annoyance into a claustrophobic fury, and under the cloak of anonymity, people think they can get away with anything. We need to put a stop to that.

Middle East

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last Thursday I warmly commended the Prime Minister for the way in which he had treated the House in relation to the matter of Syria. He was forthright in coming to this House and giving a lengthy statement and then answering questions for two hours. I also said last Thursday that it would be a big mistake for the Prime Minister to attempt to bounce this House into a decision early and without proper debate.

I understand that the Prime Minister has just announced on television—not to this House—that the debate and vote on Syria are to take place this Wednesday. First, can you confirm, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there could perfectly easily be a business statement at 10 o’clock tonight—that would be perfectly in order—so that that could be made clear for the convenience of the whole House? Secondly, will you confirm that if the Government do not table their motion until tomorrow, which I understand will be the case, the only amendments that can be considered on Wednesday—if the debate is still on Wednesday—are manuscript amendments? In 2013, we could only consider manuscript amendments, but that was because the House had been summoned back from recess. In these circumstances, there is no excuse for us to be proceeding in this way when making such important decisions.

Will you also confirm, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there is no reason why the debate should not be a two-day debate, as we have been requesting for the past two weeks, so that we do not have two-minute, three-minute or four-minute limits to speeches, but can properly consider the very serious issues that many Members on both sides of the House want to raise with the Government?

Finally, I hope you can confirm that if the debate is to end at 10 pm on Wednesday, rather than at the moment of interruption at 7 pm, another motion also needs to be tabled. It would surely be for the convenience of the House if it was tabled today, again so that Members can table amendments to it that do not have to be manuscript amendments.

I just say to the Government that there are many Members on both sides of the House who want to listen to proper debate on a matter that is not straightforward and simple, and any shenanigans or attempts to bounce the House into a decision would be wholly regrettable.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. To run through his questions, he is absolutely right that the motion could be tabled tonight. He is correct that if it is tabled later any amendments would have to be manuscript amendments. It would also take a business of the House motion in order to change the hours of the sitting on Wednesday to take us through to 10 pm. As ever, the shadow Leader of the House is absolutely correct on everything he asked—because he knew the answers before he asked—but I confirm that he is correct. Of course, that is now on the record. Obviously, it is not for the Chair, but for the Government to decide the business of the House. I am sure the usual channels will be in discussions to try to come to an early agreement that will benefit all Members of the House.

Rural Phone and Broadband Connectivity

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I will not give way if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because we want to get on to—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The hon. Gentleman has only just walked in.

[Chris Bryant]

To be fair, the hon. Gentleman did speak earlier.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Just for clarification, normally you do not walk in and intervene, no matter if you have spoken earlier. The convention is you at least hear a little bit of the new debate.

[Chris Bryant]

On the Government’s record, I think what everybody has said today is that we have to take the whole country with us. That means 100%, not 93% or 95%. I merely point out to hon. Members that the original target was 2 megabits a second by 2012. That was abandoned by this Government, who moved the target to 2015. Now, the target has been moved to 2016. I suggest that that means we want lots of people to be able to run before some people are even able to walk in the digital economy, and I think that that is a mistake.

The superfast target of 24 megabits a second has also been changed. It was 90% by 2015. Then, when the Government worked out that that simply was not going to happen, for all the reasons hon. Members have set out today, they moved it to 95% by 2016.

Point of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will know that last week, a Minister inadvertently voted in favour of and against a particular proposition. This week, six Members voted both in favour and against, in the same Division, on the Government’s same-sex marriage proposals. Historically, the House has always deprecated this because it creates a problem if, for example, people are counted twice for a quorum. Moreover, we now have new rules on what counts as a no-confidence motion leading to a general election, whereby the number of Members counted is important.

May I therefore ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to discuss with Mr Speaker referring this matter to the Procedure Committee so that we come up with a firm view? “Erskine May” is very conflicted on what can happen: in some circumstances, people are allowed to revise their vote, as happened in December 1947.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given notice of his point of order. As he knows, the Chair has deprecated intentionally voting in both Lobbies—that is, other than cancelling out inadvertently incorrect votes, as he mentioned. We have no formal procedure for registering abstention in this House, and I would not wish us to have an informal system that would not be understood by those outside this House, and which might well mean that Members who abstain from voting are unfairly criticised for being absent. So I continue to deprecate the practice, but if there is pressure to examine a formal alternative, that would be a matter, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, for the Procedure Committee, which I am sure has heard the message loud and clear.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is not present to move the amendment that he tabled to clause 1. I think that is because when the Speaker announced the amendments that had been selected, he referred only to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) to the allocation of time motion.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

For clarification, rather than on a point of order, the amendment appears on the selection list.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chairman (Mr Peter Bone)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be making an intervention. This sounds rather like a speech.

[Chris Bryant]

It was a very good intervention, though, Mr Bone. I think you are being a bit mean this afternoon.

The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is absolutely right. That is the problem with the clause. I want the clause to go through, but I think it will provide us with long-term problems because it will change the point at which we consider someone to have become reconciled to, or to be in communion with, the Catholic Church. A Catholic can be in communion with the Church of England, as the hon. Member for Aldershot said, because we accept anyone who is in good standing with their own Church into communion with the Church of England. The same does not apply the other way round, however. This is where the issue of bringing up children comes in.

European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

No, the Minister is wrong. What a member state tries to do, across the piece and over a period of time, is to decide what its main priorities may be. That does not mean that every time a treaty is coming up, it decides to put yet another thing on the table. Indeed, I would argue that the problem with the Government’s current approach is that they are trying to fight the European Union on too many fronts at the same time and will not secure any of their intended outcomes.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has only just come in, but we do need shorter interventions. I know that he gets carried away, but I am sure that he will be shorter in future.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I give way to the hon. Lady, because I know—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are in danger of questioning the nature and duties of Members of the other House and of going over the line in doing so, and I am sure that we would not want to do that.

Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

If the right hon. Gentleman will wait a moment and just let me finish—[Interruption.] If the Whip could just calm down—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Let us get back to a sensible debate and let us have a little more courtesy from the Front Benches on both sides.

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way again to the Secretary of State in a moment, but I just want to answer the point about providing information to Sky before it was available to this House. Yes, there are certain circumstances where that option is available to a Secretary of State, but not normally before the markets have opened, not when it can be used for commercial advantage for that organisation and not when people on the other side of the bid have been treated in a completely different way. That is why I think the Financial Services Authority may still want to investigate.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Thursday 17th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Come and join this side, then.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Bryant, please, can we just calm down a little? Both sides get irritated and no one wants to see anyone irritated. Can we offer the hon. Lady our congratulations as well?

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Yesterday afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport:

“Why was the special adviser the nominated person in the Department? If this was so important, as the Secretary of State is saying, why was his special adviser the nominated person?”

The Secretary of State replied:

“His role was agreed by the permanent secretary”.—[Official Report, 25 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 963.]

This morning, at the Public Accounts Committee, the permanent secretary was asked on 10 occasions whether he had actually approved that decision, as the Secretary of State suggested to the House yesterday, and he point blank refused to say. The reason this is a point of order is that if we were to apply for a Standing Order No. 24 debate on this very serious issue of whether the Secretary of State might have inadvertently or advertently misled the House, we would have to have the first debate on Monday and the second on Tuesday. Can you confirm, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the House would not be able to prorogue on Tuesday in that eventuality?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

First, I cannot judge something that has not happened. We do not know whether what the hon. Member mentions will be received on Monday. The decision will obviously be taken when such a request has been received; only then could it be decided upon. It would be wrong for me to rule on something hypothetical.

Business without Debate

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We now come to motion 8, on the Adjournment of the House.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you will know, and as is stated in Standing Order No. 21, oral questions may be taken on a Monday, a Tuesday, a Wednesday or a Thursday. However, the Standing Order makes no reference to a Friday. Can you confirm that Standing Order No. 11(4) nevertheless allows the Speaker, on a Friday at 11 am, to make provision for questions of an urgent nature to be answered, or, for that matter, for Ministers to make a statement? I ask because the motion that we are about to consider does not allow us to sit on Wednesday 28 March, and some of us fear that that might be because the Prime Minister is frightened of answering questions in the House—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. If I am to give a ruling one way or the other, I must be able to hear the question that I am being asked.

[Chris Bryant]

In particular—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I must say to Sir Peter Bottomley that I will not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question until he has completed it.

[Chris Bryant]

In particular, we note that 28 March is the anniversary of the last occasion on which a Prime Minister was ousted by virtue of a vote of confidence. Can you confirm, Mr Deputy Speaker, that if we were to sit on 23 March, which is a Friday, it would be perfectly possible for there to be questions to the Prime Minister, and indeed a statement from the Prime Minister, if the Government tabled a motion to that effect?

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would it be sensible—whether generally or just in the case of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—for Members to be asked to submit their points of order in writing, so that we could be spared the words that are unnecessary to the making of the actual point?

Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Friday 21st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This is not relevant. We are dealing with the Bill, and Members should be speaking to the Bill. I am sure the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) does not want to get led all over the place. We have already seen that coming from the Government side, and I certainly do not want to see it coming from the Opposition side.

[Chris Bryant]

Thank you for that advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I think the hon. Member for Shipley will be absolutely scandalised to have been described as coming from the Government side.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am not sure about being middle-aged, either, but do carry on.

[Chris Bryant]

I think you are middle-aged, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am pretty much there as well.

The problem that I have with the contention made by the hon. Member for Shipley is that I still think there is a great deal of prejudice in British society. It is complex and arises in all sorts of ways. I have seen in my constituency problems at school for young black kids in a community that is almost entirely white, and sometimes black teachers have had a really rough time because of the kind of language that people use. Language that would no longer be heard in most other parts of the country, where there is a racial mix, is sometimes still used.

I would also point out that the suicide statistics for gay young men in particular are still quite phenomenal. A young gay lad is six times more likely to commit suicide than his heterosexual counterpart, and I would love to see the end of homophobic bullying in schools. It will be very difficult to achieve, because people are not born with a pink triangle on their forehead or whatever—it is something complicated that they have to discover for themselves, and children can be very cruel. Tackling such prejudice will always be one of the important things for Governments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I cannot see anything about tolerance in the Bill. I think we will stick with the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

There is nothing in the Bill about tolerance. Indeed, one of the main problems with it is that it does not even aspire to tolerance, which is one of the many reasons why I oppose it.

The hon. Member for Shipley said—I am not paraphrasing, but accurately recording what he said—that women and ethnic minorities do not need the rules to be rigged in order to get jobs. He feels that the current legislation is patronising, because women and members of ethnic minorities are perfectly able to get jobs. I am not sure that that is true. In fact, the evidence shows that, all too often, the rules are effectively rigged so that women do not get jobs.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether Labour men who supported all-women shortlists were surrendering themselves and falling on their swords. I merely point out that we are all about to lay down on our swords, because we voted through the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. I have no idea whether there will be a Rhondda seat or a Greater Rhondda seat, incorporating most of Caerphilly—that was my suggestion. I made no objection to all-women shortlists in the Labour party in 1997. I stood in High Wycombe, which was almost impossible for the party to win, and my election was not anticipated, although the Conservative party so completely destroyed itself in the 1997 election that I very nearly was elected.

All-women shortlists were then rendered illegal by court action. Interestingly, 10 Welsh Labour MPs stood down or retired before the 2001 election, and every single one was replaced by a Welsh Labour male MP—not a single woman was selected in any of those 10 historically safe Labour seats. I rejoiced that I was selected for the Rhondda in 2001, to many people’s surprise, not least my own, but it is none the less important that political parties have the power to retain all-women shortlists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I will move on a little if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

We in the Labour party need to address those issues. Many Government Members criticise Labour’s relationship with the trade unions, but I make absolutely no apology for it. Many of the working class people who have come to the House have done so through the trade union route. They learned in the trade union movement how to do their politics and put their arguments, and they were financially supported so that they could put themselves forward for parliamentary nominations. They were selected on that basis, which is why I wholeheartedly support the relationship between the trade unions and the Labour party.

The hon. Member for Shipley seemed to suggest that there should be absolutely no limits to free speech. I mostly agree with him, and I believe in a free press. I worry sometimes about the direction of the Leveson inquiry. In my work in relation to the News of the World, my intention has never been to dismantle investigative journalism, which is an important part of how we do business and ensure our democratic rights. However, the hatred and the bigotry that some express sometimes goes beyond the pale. I want less hatred to be poured into the pool of hatred that is already out there. Some of the hon. Gentleman’s arguments are similar to those that Ann Widdecombe used when she was in the House. I found that they simply added to the sum total of bigotry rather than diminished it. We should all be striving to diminish it, and I am glad that we have laws that prevent the incitement of not only racial hatred but religious and homophobic hatred. As we have seen over recent years, that legislation has been all the more important in areas where there is a real social mix.

I also believe that Parliament has been immeasurably better for having had more women in it in recent years. I honestly think that were it not for the arrival of so many women some issues would not have been explored and addressed with anything like the seriousness with which they have been. One example is domestic violence. For centuries, a woman was regarded merely as a chattel or another household good for a man to do with as he pleased. Those laws were changed in the middle of the 20th century, but only in recent years did the police and the law start to take domestic violence seriously. I am certain that in my constituency and many others a large proportion of violent crime relates to what happens in people’s households or between domestic partners. I do not believe that the police would have the powers, will or resources to deal with that today had it not been for the arrival of significant numbers of women in Parliament.

I should note that today is the anniversary of the arrival of the first women peers in 1958. There were four of them, and they were a slightly strange lot. One was married to a viceroy, another was the daughter of a viceroy and another was a countess, so it was not exactly equality as we like to see it today. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), also known as the hon. Member for the 15th century and for “Question Time”, obviously likes that, however.

I am glad that the Government are moving forward with the issue of succession so that the prejudice—stemming originally from common law, not statute—that the succession should be subject to male-preference primogeniture should be changed. I also hope that the Government are moving—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are drifting well away from the Bill. We enjoy the history lesson, and it is good that a lot of history is coming out today. However, it is certainly not relevant to the Bill; we are certainly drifting way off course. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will bring us back on course.

[Chris Bryant]

I do apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is just that clause 2 is entitled “Definition of ‘affirmative or positive action’”. The Prime Minister is seeking to change the legislation at the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government next week and I worry that that could be seen by the hon. Member for Shipley as positive discrimination on the grounds of sex, listed in paragraph (b), and religion, in paragraph (g). I would hope that the hon. Gentleman was in favour of equality in the succession.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Not being an entrant of “Strictly”, I can be strictly authoritarian on this—we are going to stick to the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

And I didn’t say that.

The Economy

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Give way!

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Can we be a little calmer? Mr Bryant, I know you are very excited, but I am sure that people will give way.

Health and Social Care Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I will not give way. If he had allowed more—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There is very little time as it is, and screaming at each other does not help.

[Chris Bryant]

If the Deputy Leader of the House had allowed more than an hour for debate today, I would give way to him, but I am not going to give way now. We have already heard from a Minister for 15 minutes.

It is a bizarre selection of clauses that the Committee will be allowed to discuss. For instance, it will not be allowed to discuss clause 239 on NICE’s charter, nor clause 240 on its functions, but it will be allowed to consider clause 242, on the failure of NICE to discharge its functions. There is absolutely no logic to what is being presented to us.

In addition, the programme motion does not allow enough time. The Prime Minister is profoundly confused about all this, because he said many times this morning that 10 days would be allowed. Indeed, he said:

“Ten days… I don’t want to sort of misquote the Monty Python sketch but when we were in opposition we used to dream of tens days to debate a government bill”.

Well, yes, we are dreaming of 10 days now. We would love to have 10 days, but there will not be 10 days; there will be 10 sittings.

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may recall that last Monday, 16 May, we had a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence about the military covenant. Following that, because a lot of it had been leaked to the newspapers over the weekend, I raised a point of order in which I said that

“the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan)”

had

“on the record”

given

“quotations to The Daily Telegraph”,

announcing the policy before doing so in the Chamber. The Under-Secretary then said, in some kind of clarification:

“If the hon. Gentleman cares to read what was in the newspapers, he will discover that what he has said is not in fact in any way correct.”—[Official Report, 16 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 43-44.]

I have now read the newspapers. The Saturday edition of The Daily Telegraph to which I referred says clearly:

“a defence minister told The Daily Telegraph that the Government’s plans, to be announced in the House of Commons on Monday, would put the covenant ‘on a statutory basis for the first time’.”

In case there is any doubt about who that Minister was, the article later says:

“Andrew Robathan, the defence minister…told The Daily Telegraph…‘We are putting the military covenant on a statutory basis for the first time.’”

It is one thing for a Minister to leak something to the national newspapers before it is announced in this House. It is quite another for a Minister to give the House a very misleading understanding of what they have done. I do not think that the words used by the Under-Secretary in the Chamber can possibly be squared with what was in the newspaper. I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will ask Mr Speaker to ensure that the Under-Secretary comes back to the House to make the true situation absolutely clear.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

What has been said is on the record for everyone to see. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will refer the matter to Mr Speaker, and that he will look at what has been said today.

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I am particularly glad that my right hon. Friend has reminded that lot over there on the Tory Benches that they fully supported Labour’s spending plans up until the end of 2008 and promised to spend the additional benefits of growth on the economy, which they never seem to remember. That lot on the Liberal Democrat Benches, when they were sitting over here on the Opposition Benches, urged even greater levels of spending, so we are not going to take any hypocrisy from them.

In addition, will my right hon. Friend remind that lot over there of one further piece of history? In 1924, George Lansbury—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. You have to be much shorter, Mr Bryant.

Planning (Opencast Mining Separation Zones) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Friday 11th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Many Members in the Chamber feel passionately about this issue because it directly affects their constituents. Two hon. Members have asked the Minister a direct question: do the Government support, oppose or tolerate the Bill? It seems that the Minister is trying to talk for another half hour, but that would be cowardly and would not answer—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not mean that and that he will take back the word “cowardly”.

[Chris Bryant]

Obviously I am not saying that the Minister is being cowardly, but if he were to do that, he would be cowardly.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the word “cowardly” in this case.

[Chris Bryant]

If that is your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to withdraw the word, but I want the Minister to answer the question directly for the people in the constituencies that are most affected, because otherwise he is a disgrace.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We should not get carried away. Minister, I am sure that you have heard the points—you carry on.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman]

Order. We should not be rehashing previous points of order. We should be dealing with the amendment. I am sure that Mr Bryant wishes to do so.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, indeed. This is just about the process and the fact that it has been the convention in every Committee stage in which I have been involved for Ministers to write to all members of the Committee, and, when the Committee is sitting on the Floor of the House, to all those who have taken part in the debate.

My point is that clause 2 has no electoral mandate. Clause 1 has some degree of mandate, in that we had proposed in our manifesto that there should be fixed-term Parliaments, and the Liberal Democrats had made a similar proposal. I do not believe that there is a mandate for a five-year fixed-term Parliament, as both political parties had previously said that they were in favour of four-year fixed-term Parliaments. Clause 2 has absolutely no mandate from the electorate. Indeed, the proposals in it run directly counter to those in the Conservative manifesto, and to what the Prime Minister said as Leader of the Opposition in relation to the reform of the power of Dissolution. He said that he would introduce legislation to ensure that, should there be a change of Prime Minister as a result of the party in power changing its leader, there would be a general election within six months, but that is not the proposal that we have before us today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The Deputy Leader of the House is chuntering away. I think he is trying to talk to you, Mr Hoyle, because he keeps on saying that I am out of order and that I am not speaking to the right part of the clause. Perhaps he could have his conversation with you privately.

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is absolutely right in one sense. We have to achieve a balancing act. This House needs to exert its power through its majority to hold the Government to account and, if necessary, to sack the Government. In most circumstances, that has happened when a political party has splintered or when a leader of a party has proved unable to control his or her troops—his, in most cases—through the Division Lobbies. We have seen that happen with the Irish Home Rule Bill and with the Budget at different times, leading to a collapse of confidence in the Government on the Government side and the subsequent fall of that Government. I think that we should still stick with that process.

In case hon. Members feel that in recent times motions of no confidence—and particularly successful motions of no confidence—have been pretty rare, it is worth pointing out that we should look at a longer period of history than just the last few years if we are to set out constitutional change that will stand the test of time. We have no way of knowing what will happen to the political parties, as presently constituted, in five, 10, 15 or 20 years’ time.

Looking back over the last 150 or so years, we find that no confidence motions have been used quite regularly and have frequently led to the collapse of Governments. Lord North’s Government, for example, fell in 1782. There was also a sustained period in which no confidence motions were common from 1885 onwards; indeed, there were two such motions in 1886, when first Lord Salisbury’s Government and then Gladstone’s Government fell again on the issue of Irish home rule, which divided the Liberal party—

[The Chairman]

Order. I am sure that the Committee, like me, welcomes the history lesson, but we must stick to the amendments, from which we are drifting away. The hon. Gentleman may feel that he is in order, but he is not. I would like him to come back to order, and it would also be helpful if he faced the Chair.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful, Mr Hoyle. I will address myself to you more directly. The point I am trying to make is that clause 2 deals with motions of no confidence and early elections and these have been a sustained part of what we have put up with. I am not sure whether you are going to allow a clause 2 stand part debate later. I note that you are saying no, but I hope it will be possible to allow a degree of latitude so that we can consider all the elements of the clause.

The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) observed that Governments had fallen by virtue of their Budgets’ being opposed. One of my arguments is that the whole concept of a no confidence motion is excluded from the Bill. It is not clear what counts as a no confidence motion; nor is it clear, in the part of the Bill that we are currently considering, what counts as a motion calling for an early general election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure that that is true. It depended on the Crown—that is, the Government or Executive—retaining the power to dissolve Parliament. I do not think that a measure that was considered to be a motion of no confidence in 1866—namely,

“to leave out the words ‘clear yearly’ and put ‘rateable’ instead thereof”—

would be considered to be one today, and I therefore think that it would be inappropriate for that power to remain.

[The Chairman]

Order. The next set of amendments deals with no confidence motions. I think that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of jumping ahead, and I am sure that he does not want to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

In case there were any doubt about it, I shall join the hon. Gentleman in the Division Lobby unless the Whips manage to get to him, which is very unlikely. They rarely manage to get to him—he is an undiscovered country beyond whose bourn no Whip has ever returned, since we are doing “Hamlet” this afternoon.

[The Chairman]

Order. It may help the hon. Gentleman to know that the Chair will decide on which amendments the Committee may vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I would not want the Minister inadvertently to mislead the Committee. He said that extra time has been provided, but he has not allowed any extra time; he has merely allowed the injury time for the three statements that interfered with the debate. [Interruption.] If the Deputy Leader of the House wants to make a speech, I am sure he will be able to catch your eye, Mr Hoyle. [Interruption.]

[The Chairman]

Order. I would like to stop this bickering between the Front Benchers. Let us move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman]

Order. I think we are back discussing no confidence—

[Chris Bryant]

No—

[The Chairman]

Order. I am sorry, but I am making a ruling from the Chair. I feel that this is a debate that we are going to have and I am concerned that we are getting drawn into it now. The Minister may answer quickly, if he wishes, but I do not want to let this go any further after that.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am going to allow Mr Chris Bryant in, but I know that he is going to make a very brief contribution.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to you, Mr Hoyle. I want to speak only because the Minister made some announcements in his speech that are obviously significant. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, in a rather self-righteous tone, that he made them to Parliament, and we are delighted that he has done so—I presume that that is a criticism of his colleagues, not of anybody else in the Chamber. However, he has made some important announcements. He excoriated my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) for referring to the Government position before we had heard what it was, but as the Government chose not to make their position known until the very end of the debate, it is hardly her fault. As he knew that he was going to make his announcement this evening, he could perfectly well have written to all parties concerned to make it clear that he wanted to consult on the issue. I suggest that that would have shown slightly more respect to the Committee and to the various political parties involved.

The Minister is proposing a change, but I note that so far he has not been prepared to say whether, if he intends to table further amendments, he will do so in this House. I wholly respect the powers and intelligence of the House of Lords to make sensible amendments, and I hope that it will do so to several pieces of legislation. However, I believe that amendments to legislation that affects elections should be debated and made in the elected House, not in the unelected Chamber. That is why I hope that at some point the Minister will make good his suggestions, that he will guarantee to debate those amendments in this House first, and that we will not have Report stage until such time as those amendments have been made in this House.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order. The point about the amount of time allowed for the debate has been taken on board, but that is a decision for the Government rather than the Chair.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) knows perfectly well that I entirely agree with him. I note that at least 12 Labour Members have not yet been able to speak, and that is why I will speak very briefly now.

Let me just say this to the Government. The danger is that in their desire to create mathematically perfect constituencies and to allow only 5% of leeway to the boundary commissions, and in creating the exemptions for three seats in Scotland, they will undermine the three Scottish constituencies and make them seem like rotten boroughs. The Government will make the whole country look like a mathematical exercise, and not like anything that recognises the facts of life.

When miners went down the mines in the Rhondda in the 19th and 20th centuries, they had a number stamped on their miners’ lamps. The people of this country do not want to be just numbers on a miner’s lamp. The people of this country want to be recognised for the constituencies and the communities that are represented in it, and it is their voices that should be heard in the House rather than just the statistics with which the Minister agrees.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You said in response to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) that a point about who gets to speak is not a point of order for the Chair. A point about which amendments are selected is, however, a point of order for the Chair. My amendment to this part of the Bill deals with the same kind of special privilege that other Members have addressed in their amendments, but it was not selected. I appreciate that the Chair has a difficult task. However, my point of order is: if this Bill had been taken in full Committee, would not my amendment have been allowed and debated?

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means]

I welcome your opinion, but you cannot discuss amendments that have not been selected.



Clause 9

Number and distribution of seats

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 364, page 7, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert—

‘UK Electoral quota

1 The UK Electoral Quota shall be defined as the total electorate of the United Kingdom on the designated enumeration day divided by 650.’.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 41, page 7, line 28, leave out ‘600’ and insert

‘gradually reduced to 600 in accordance with the terms of rule 1A.

1A (1) In each periodic report submitted by a Boundary Commission under section 3(2), the overall number of constituencies in each part of the United Kingdom shall be no more than in the previous report.

(2) The Boundary Commissions shall meet at the outset of each periodic review to determine the overall number of constituencies in the United Kingdom, and the number to be allocated to each of the four parts of the United Kingdom by each Commission, in accordance with rule 8.

(3) The Boundary Commissions shall ensure that the overall number of constituencies in the United Kingdom is reduced in each succeeding periodic report to no more than 600 by 2029 in their fourth/fifth periodic reports.’.

Amendment 67, page 7, line 28, leave out ‘600’ and insert ‘585’.

Amendment 74, page 7, line 28, leave out ‘600’ and insert ‘500’.

Amendment 227, page 7, line 28, leave out ‘600’ and insert—

‘no fewer than 588 and no more than 612’.

Amendment 259, page 7, line 28, leave out ‘600’ and insert ‘650’.

Amendment 42, page 7, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert—

‘U/T where U is the electorate of the United Kingdom minus the electorate of the constituencies mentioned in rule 6 and T is the overall number of constituencies in the United Kingdom determined by the Boundary Commissions under rule 1A above.’.

Amendment 68, page 7, line 35, leave out ‘U/598’ and insert ‘U/583’.

Amendment 75, page 7, line 35, leave out ‘U/598’ and insert ‘U/498’.

Amendment 260, page 7, line 35, leave out ‘U/598’ and insert ‘U/648’.

Amendment 228, page 9, line 40, at end insert—

‘Variation in number of constituencies

8A (8) A Boundary Commission shall have power to recommend that the number of constituencies in the relevant part of the United Kingdom should be greater or smaller than the number determined in accordance with the allocation method set out in rule 8.

(9) The number so recommended must be no less than 98 per cent. and no more than 102 per cent. of the number so determined.’.

[Chris Bryant]

Amendment 364 would replace the first subsection of clause 9, which states that the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom shall be 600, with the proposal:

“The UK Electoral Quota shall be defined as the total electorate of the United Kingdom on the designated enumeration day divided by 650.”

I am sure that all hon. Members will note that 650 is the present number of Members of Parliament, as opposed to the 600 that the Bill proposes. I am opposed for a series of reasons to the Government’s proposal to change the number of seats and to fix it at 600. First, they are rigging the number of seats. The 600 seats figure did not appear in any party’s manifesto. The Liberal Democrats mentioned 500 MPs in their manifesto, while the Conservatives had a manifesto commitment to reduce the number of seats by 10%, which would have taken the number down to 585. Neither of those figures is in front of us. Why might that possibly be? If those two parties were doing a deal, it would be reasonable to assume that we would end somewhere between the 500 seats mentioned in one manifesto and the 585 mentioned in the other. In fact, they have gone for a completely new figure, which seems to have been plucked out of the air.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I was generous in allowing such a long intervention, but the hon. Gentleman has gone on far too long. If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) chooses not to answer, I will understand.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, I was going to make an attempt at an answer, but I do not know whether it will appease the hon. Gentleman.

I am not trying to undermine the result of the referendum. I would like every single person in Britain to vote in it. I would prefer a system that would lead to even turnout within the bounds of normal elections, rather than a system in which there were important general elections in some places—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—but only local elections in 83%, I think, of England. It would provide for a nicer outcome if we could provide results by parliamentary constituency boundaries.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 22nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ms Harman]

And the VAT rise makes this a Budget of broken promises. Before the election the Prime Minister said he had no plans to put up VAT, and now, in his first Budget, he puts up VAT. During the election campaign the Liberal Democrats attacked what they called the Tory secret VAT bombshell. Little did we know that the Lib Dems had their own secret bombshell to drop on us: that they would vote for it.

The Tories present this Budget but they try to evade responsibility for it. They try to justify their broken promises, saying that things have changed—that things are worse than they realised—but what is this new information? The OBR forecasts are better than we predicted at the time of the March Budget: less borrowing than expected, and lower unemployment than expected, because of our actions.

The Government like to cite new information from abroad: the problems of Greece. Greece is in a completely different position from us: it is still in recession; it does not control its interest rates; and its debt is over 115% of its GDP. Greece is no alibi for this Tory Budget.

Nor should they pray in aid the story of Canada’s Budget cuts. Canada’s deficit reduction was taking place as Canada’s economy was boosted by strong growth in its neighbouring economy and main export market, the United States. Our export market is mainly the EU and growth there is sluggish. That is why President Obama wrote to his fellow G20 leaders this week urging them to turn away from the rush to austerity. Yes, deficits must be reduced, but we must not risk undermining the fragile global recovery. This is a Budget based on rewritten history and false excuses.

They say there is no alternative, but the truth is this is what they want. This Budget is not driven by economics; it is driven by ideology—their commitment to a smaller state. The Chancellor claims he has no alternative, but the OBR last week clearly stated that our plans would have more than halved the deficit over four years. No, this austerity Budget is their choice, and right now it is exactly the wrong choice.

This reckless Tory Budget would not be possible without the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems denounced early cuts; now they are backing them. They denounced VAT increases; now they are voting for them. How could they support everything they fought against? How could they let down everyone who voted for them? How could they let the Tories so exploit them? Do they not see that they are just a fig leaf? The Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary is just the Chancellor’s fig leaf. The Deputy Prime Minister is just the Prime Minister’s fig leaf. The Lib Dems’ leaders have sacrificed everything they ever stood for to ride in ministerial cars and to ride on the coat tails of the Tory Government. Twenty-two Liberal Democrat ministerial jobs have been bought at the cost of tens of thousands of other people’s. The Liberal Democrats used to stand up for people’s jobs, but now they only stand up for their own.

Look at the Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable). The House has noticed his remarkable transformation in the past few weeks from national treasure to Treasury poodle. They have no mandate for this Budget; this Budget has no legitimacy. Even if the Lib Dems will not speak up for jobs, we will. Even if they will not fight for fairness, we will, and even if they will not protest against Tory broken promises, we will.

We will support measures that are fair and that will help the economy. We will support the increase in capital gains tax. As the Chancellor said, it will help to stop people avoiding income tax by getting payment in capital. Such avoidance of tax is even more objectionable when we need to cut borrowing. We welcome the retention of the 50p tax rate. The Labour party was the first to call for a levy on the banks and the Government are going ahead with it. We will support that move, although I note that the banks will get a corporation tax cut to compensate them. We will support the increase in personal allowance, but the public, who will be hit by a rise in VAT, will feel short-changed.

In the face of a global economic crisis, this has been a difficult time for businesses and families, not just here but around the world. What this country needed was a Budget to support economic growth, to protect jobs and to cut the deficit fairly, but what we have got is a reckless Budget that pulls the rug out from under the economy. Predictably, the Tories do not care and are not listening. The Lib Dems are wringing their hands, and well they might, but that is not good enough. They should think about their constituents who will suffer if this Budget goes ahead. The Lib Dems should think again, but whatever they do, we will vote against it.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said to us earlier that this country would hear the facts about his Budget straight from him at the Dispatch Box, but this morning his freeze of the civil list moneys was announced in The Guardian, his announcements on capital spending plans were in The Guardian and his proposals on national insurance, child tax credit and the VAT rise being delayed were all in The Guardian. Also, the precise figures about the changes to income tax—rising by £1,000 to £7,475—were in every single media outlet in this country. That is an abuse of the privilege of this House. Will Mr Speaker, or you on his behalf, refer this issue of the abuse of the privilege of the House to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

As hon. Members well know, Mr Speaker is unhappy about announcements being trailed before they come to this House. If the hon. Member speaks later, he can bring it to the House’s attention once more. No doubt, this will be passed on to Mr Speaker.

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Chris Bryant

Monday 21st June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That matter is now on the record. If the hon. Lady were to table an urgent question, I am sure it would be considered through the usual channels.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to the point of order made by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), Mr Deputy Speaker. It is surely right that the Backbench Business Committee should be elected predominantly by Back Benchers, not by Front Benchers. I fully understand and accept the point made by the Deputy Leader of the House that the Leader of the House and the business managers will not take part in that vote, but may we publish not how people vote, but whether they vote tomorrow, so that we can know whether Ministers vote?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman rightly makes his point, which I am sure will be taken on board and considered in due course, but it is not for the Chair to make that decision today.