Student Visas

Debate between Mark Reckless and Chris Bryant

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Indeed, that is an important point. If we look at the number of people from Latin American militaries—air force, navy or army—who have historically had the Prussian tradition of military and then come to the UK to train in a British environment and completely changed their attitude towards democracy and the way in which the military operate in a democratic society, we see another positive aspect of people coming from other parts of the world to study here.

Many hon. Members have rightly referred to the economic benefit of international students coming to study in this country. The Government estimate in 2009, produced by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, was that this country’s higher education exports came to a value of some £8 billion and could rise to £16.9 billion by 2025. That is one of the most significant areas of growth potential in the economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said, the University of Sheffield has produced an important report on the economic benefits that can arise from international students coming here. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) referred to the importance to the north-east of not only people studying and paying for their courses—many British people do not understand that international students pay fully for their course and, indeed, pay over the odds compared with British people, doing so in advance—but all the other benefits that come to the local economy. According to the University of Sheffield’s study, the relevant figure for Sheffield is £120 million a year.

In addition, we need to consider the wide range of subjects studied. Some people want to say, “It is just about the brightest and the best coming to the United Kingdom.” I wholly agree with those who have said that it was absolutely right for the Government to deal with issue of bogus colleges, but it is not just university degrees at Oxford and Cambridge that we should be concerned with; this is also about postgraduate studies at many different universities and the English language. I would prefer people who are learning English around the world to learn about taps, not faucets, and about pavements, not sidewalks, because I would prefer them to have a British understanding of the English language and get it from the horse’s mouth.

Many schools and universities have valued enormously exchange students coming to the United Kingdom, and they are important in relation to the shorter-term student visitor visa. There is not only an economic advantage to consider, but a social advantage, in terms of, the quality of the education students are able to get. If they are studying international politics or history and people come with completely different experiences from elsewhere in the world, that enlivens, informs and improves the quality of the education of British students in universities and colleges. Also, this is about ensuring that we provide the strongest possible opportunity for overseas students to develop their understanding of what it is like to be in Britain and to do business in Britain. We hope that they will then do greater business with us further in the future.

I would also point out that, as many hon. Members have said, this is an area of migration—if we want to term it as such—that is warmly welcomed and accepted by the British public. Leaving aside the matter of bogus colleges, where foreigners were exploited and not given a proper education, and British taxpayers were exploited because proper controls were not in place, it is warmly accepted in this country that international students are important for our economy. If we are to prosper in the future as a country that is in “a global race”, to use the Prime Minister’s term, we have to be able to compete for international students—for that market around the world.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that not only have we had bogus colleges, but quite a lot of colleges have provided relatively low-value courses, be they in business, accounting or IT, where the incentive of being able to work part-time, stay on to work afterwards, bring dependants and potentially stay on has been much of the reason why international students have stayed, and that the Government have been right to crack down on that?

[Chris Bryant]

I want to see more evidence of precisely what the hon. Gentleman mentions. I believe he has been in his Committee all afternoon, so I understand why he has not been able to take part in the whole of this debate, which is a shame. I merely wish to cite the Government’s own Home Office paper from this year, “The Migrant Journey”, which showed that just 1% of students who came here in 2006 were permanently residing here five years later. So those myths that have sometimes grown up of—[Interruption.] There are others who are still studying and who have gone on to study other courses, but according to the Home Office’s own report only 1% are permanently residing. Some of the myths that have been mentioned in previous debates about 20% or 30% of students staying on afterwards are misguided.

I wish briefly to discuss the Government’s record. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) referred to the Higher Education Statistics Agency. Its figures showed, contrary to the figures often provided by the Government, that the number of first-year, non-EU, new-entrant students at universities was down by 0.4% in 2011-12. In particular, the number of postgraduate new entrants has gone down from 105,195 to 103,150, which is potentially a worrying trend that we need to examine for the future because it is the first time there has been a fall in those figures for a decade—in effect, for all the time that similar statistics have been available.

As several hon. Members said, the number of students coming from India has fallen by some 8,000. That number may have been made up for by the number coming from China, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) said, it was a sign of the Government’s “forked-tonguedness” or two-facedness that the Prime Minister actually had to go to India to say that there is no cap on international students coming to the United Kingdom. There may not be a legal cap, but it certainly feels as if there is a cap, and the Government have to address that. As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, if this is a growing market, we need to be holding our market share, and that means advancing and not stepping backwards. I would like us to increase our market share, because we have a unique and very valuable offer, and this would be good for the British economy. I worry that the way the Government’s immigration target is crafted has made that more difficult for us to achieve.

All the estimates show a significant fall in Britain’s attractiveness as a place for study, while Australia and Canada have seen dramatic improvements in their attractiveness. One Australian who works in this business told me recently, “I am delighted at what your Government are doing, because you are giving us lots of business.” That should really worry the Government.

I wish to raise one other minor point, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned and which relates to the number of overseas students who come to study degrees in science, technology, engineering and maths. That is the area in which we saw the most significant drop—8%—in 2011-12 in the number of non-EU new-entrant students coming to the UK. That must worry us, because it will affect our future competitiveness and productivity.

I now want to ask the Minister about London Metropolitan university. On 3 September 2012, while responding to an urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green)— the Minister’s predecessor—said that more than 60% of students at London Met were involved in the “problems” of dubious education and were not proper students. He added:

“It was not a small, isolated number of students; the sampling showed significant systemic problems throughout.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2012; Vol. 549, c. 26.]

I should have thought that if that had been the case, a significant number of people would have been removed from the country.

That one bovver-booted intervention, made at a time of the year—the autumn—when many people were coming to study in the United Kingdom, sent a message around the world that Britain was not open for business. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us precisely how many students from London Metropolitan university were deemed to be “not proper students” and have been removed from the country. If he cannot do so now, perhaps he will write to me.

In his report on tier 4 visas, John Vine said:

“We found a potential risk of non-genuine students opting to apply for Student (Visitor) visas”,

which, he said,

“are not subject to the same stringent rules that are applied to Tier 4… The Agency needs to be alert to this to ensure that this route is not exploited in the future.”

The dramatic increase in the number of people applying to study shorter courses is almost in direct proportion to the fall in the number applying for tier 4 visas. I fear that a displacement activity may be taking place, and I think there is a danger that unless we impose far more significant controls on shorter-term visas, they will be open to abuse.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Mark Reckless and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I rather agree with the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher). I am wholeheartedly in favour of getting rid of the 1772 Act, which seems a ludicrous piece of legislation that has always been ineffectual. It has encouraged monarchs to be capricious in granting or not granting consent and it was introduced as a capricious piece of legislation. My problem is with clause 3, which is meant to replace it. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, there is no stipulation about whether such permission is necessary for a civil partnership. I presume that all six members could form a civil partnership and succeed to the throne without that being an issue, but if the Government’s same-sex marriage proposals were introduced, they would then have to make a request and have consent granted. I simply do not understand, and I am afraid the Minister has made it far worse for me this afternoon than it was before. Her suggestion that some convenience will be drawn up between Ministers who might or might not be advising means that there will be no clarity for Parliament.

For instance, a potential future heir to the throne might be denied consent to marry by the monarch deliberately because they wanted to exclude them from the succession, and for no other reason. The Bill makes no provision to state that that would be inappropriate. I say that that might happen in the future, because that is precisely what George III tried to do to George IV through the 1772 Act. If the clause is carried into legislation, the monarch will be able, entirely of their own volition and without any guidance from Parliament, to decide who should be excluded from the succession. The only thing that might militate against that would be if somebody got married before they became one of the six or before the monarch took offence or a dislike to them.

The Minister pointed out that other countries have similar provisions. It is true that, of the constitutional monarchies in Europe, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands have similar provisions. However, Norway has no such provision—it just has a simple law of succession, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said. It is provided for by the caprice of God, as it were, whereas in two of the three countries that have a similar provision it is a vote of Parliament that decides. For the Crown and the Crown’s Ministers to reserve to themselves the decision as to who should be barred from the succession flies in the face of the history of this country, as the succession is a matter that has always been decided by the whole of Parliament—both Houses of Parliament—through statute law. That is why I am deeply, deeply suspicious of the first three subsections, and my suspicions have been made far worse by what the Minister has said this afternoon.

[Mark Reckless]

The Minister owes the House and perhaps the wider nation and realms beyond these shores an explanation as to why the number six has been selected in subsection (1), and what considerations have been brought to bear on the matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) suggested an alternative, and said that the measure should apply to all heirs and successors of Queen Elizabeth II. I am concerned that, if we moved in that direction, such a measure would contain the seeds of its own obsolescence, rather like the Royal Marriages Act 1772 excluding all the descendants of George II except for those with a particular exemption. The numbers would balloon over time, and many of the same issues would remain.

The key issue to which the Minister should respond, and which Parliament should debate before the measure becomes law, is whether subsection (1) is subject to clause 2(1). For me, that is an important point. Having listened to all the debate, I remain undecided as to whether the Bill is an improvement on the status quo because it removes the discrimination with respect to a Catholic being able to marry someone who may inherit the throne, or whether I ascribe to the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that it may kill a minor discrimination at the expense of reopening the whole issue, and we would then be looking at the Act of Settlement as amended by the Bill increasing the offensiveness of those words on the statute.

I can see the virtue of both arguments, but what weighs in the balance is the question of whether clause 2(1) is an absolute improvement or whether it may be overturned by a Crown decision under clause 3(1) acting under the prerogative on Ministers’ advice, which could still lead to someone being excluded as a result of marrying someone of the Roman Catholic faith, notwithstanding clause 2(1). I should appreciate it if the Minister provided clarity on that, preferably today, but if not, in subsequent proceedings.

Leveson Inquiry

Debate between Mark Reckless and Chris Bryant

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe, but I will not be able to give way to the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless).

[Chris Bryant]

External pressure comes from the public; it is not that politicians are desperate to write elements of any code of conduct for the press. Anybody who wants to characterise any argument in this House as being in favour of politicians wanting to tell newspapers what they can or cannot write does a disservice to the argument. To be fair, the hon. Gentleman was not doing that, but like the Secretary of State he was trying desperately to find an argument for supporting the Prime Minister. I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that on this point it might be better to leave that alone.

In truth, we have been here before. We could replace all those in this Chamber with those who were here in 1947 for the royal commission, or in 1962—[Interruption.] I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) was not here in 1947, although I think she was here last time around. In 1973 there was Sir Kenneth Younger’s committee on privacy, and 1974 saw the royal commission set up under Professor Oliver McGregor, who went on to chair the organisation that was set up. There were two Calcutt reports.

Fascinatingly, in our last round of discussions on 21 June 1990, David Waddington rose from the Government Benches and said:

“It is now up to the press to take up the challenge…presented to it. I am confident that the response will be a positive one.”—[Official Report, 21 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 1126.]

And here we are all over again. If anything, it is slightly worse, because changes in the digital economy have made it possible for the media to do things that they could not possibly have done back in 1990 although they would doubtless have loved to.

Victims of crime have once again had their lives turned into a commodity. That is the real immorality here. Abigail Witchalls was a victim of crime. In April 2005 she was attacked, rendered paralysed from the neck downwards, and month after month the press decided to invade her privacy. Sometimes, there was perhaps a contravention of the law, such as when 20 journalists were camped out in her garden and refused to leave. Perhaps it was an invasion of privacy to take aerial photographs of the building being built in her parents’ garden to accommodate her. Perhaps she could have gone to the law, but why should someone have to go to law, which is a very expensive process, simply to have degree of privacy after having been a victim of crime?

My personal interest in this issue started because of what happened at Soham. Someone with whom I was at theological college, Tim Alban Jones, was the vicar of Soham, and his experience during that time was that the press would not leave the victims of crime alone. It is not just that the families of the two girls who were murdered had their phones hacked; every person in the village had their door knocked. People were turned into a commodity, and that is the problem.

Whole communities have been traduced. I referred earlier to Hillsborough. The families of 96 people who had lies written about them in The Sun did not have the opportunity to go to the law to find redress. It is not that criminality was involved; the information had not been secured illegally and there was no opportunity to seek claims for libel because the class of people was too large to be specific. No individuals had been named. Those who argue that everything dealt with in Leveson has been criminal activity that should have been better policed are missing the point.

We must bear in mind that the part of the Leveson inquiry published so far is just the dodgy stuff, not the criminal stuff. Lord Justice Leveson has had to circumvent the criminal stuff to ensure that prosecutions can go ahead unprejudiced and unhindered, including those on phone hacking, the suborning of police officers, conspiracy, cover-up and all the rest. Some worrying developments are still going on.

[Mark Reckless]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

The first worrying development is the lack of News International management standards committee co-operation with the Metropolitan police since May this year, which smacks of the Plimsoll strategy. As soon as the water starts lapping a little bit higher, senior News International and News Corporation management chuck somebody else overboard—a newspaper and an editor. The companies provided material on some of their journalists as long as they could ensure that the ship floated and the proprietor’s feet did not get wet. Given what Lord Leveson has said about management at News Corporation, I suspect that charges will be brought against senior directors, possibly including James and Rupert Murdoch as parts of the body corporate.

However, there is a mystery I do not understand. I understand—from two well placed people inside News International—that in 2005, The Sun and the New York Post, which are both News Corporation newspapers, paid a substantial sum to a serving member of the US armed forces in the US for a photograph of Saddam Hussein. A much larger amount was then paid via a specially set up account in the UK to that same member of the US armed forces. It is difficult to see how those who wrote the story in the UK and US, and the editors of the American newspaper and the British newspaper, could possibly pretend that they did not know how that material was obtained and that criminality was involved in the process of securing the photo. For that matter, they could not possibly pretend not to know that the laptop on which the information and the photograph were kept was destroyed; I believe it was destroyed so as to destroy the evidence of the criminality.

I therefore urge the management standards committee to provide all e-mails that relate to this matter—and particularly to the photograph of Saddam Hussein—from Rupert Murdoch to News International staff as a matter of urgency. Otherwise, people in this country will conclude that News International still does not get it, and that it is still refusing co-operate fully with the police.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

But it is also clear that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, in the charges presented against Mulcaire and Goodman, never relied on whether the messages had been intercepted before the intended recipient saw them, so I am not convinced—as Lord Justice Leveson is not convinced—of that argument.

[Mark Reckless]

As Lord Justice Leveson says, the July 2009 review by the DPP was not assisted by the failure to examine witness statements and exhibits from the prosecution. I asked the CPS for the witness statements from prosecution and it did not provide them, so I had to submit a freedom of information request, and it still has not provided them. However, I spoke earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who was clear. He said that when he was one of the victims—in counts 16 to 20 of the indictment—a police key focus in interviewing and preparing his witness statement was on whether those messages had been listened to before he picked them up. He gave clear evidence to them, saying that he went into his voicemail and discovered that a number of those messages had already been listened to by someone else before he picked them up. That is partly why he felt he was picked: in order to give proof on the narrow basis of the legal advice that the CPS clearly—and, I believe, David Perry—was saying the police had to follow.

We also have the conference on 21 August 2006. The only proper, full note of that seems to have been taken by the police—Detective Chief Superintendent Williams, in charge of the investigation, is clear that the narrow interpretation was given. We also can say that, at most, the advice was nuanced. Carmen Dowd, who was from the CPS and who had throughout taken the narrow view, was actually in that meeting. David Perry was there, and although he was not contradicting the advice given by his instructing solicitor throughout, even on his own evidence he said it was tenable to take either the wide or the narrow view—despite the legislation being clear.

David Perry has another problem. He prepared a note on 14 July saying:

“We did enquire of the police at a conference whether there was any evidence that the editor of the News of the World was involved in the Goodman-Mulcaire offences. We were told that there was not (and we never saw any such evidence). We also enquired whether there was any evidence connecting Mulcaire to other News of the World journalists. Again, we were told that there was not (and we never saw any such evidence.”

The Director of Public Prosecutions said that David Perry had given him a personal assurance in a face-to-face meeting that that was the case, and that he clearly recalled saying those things. However, when Mr Perry gave evidence under oath to the Leveson inquiry, he said:

“I don’t think I would like to say that I necessarily expressed it in precisely those terms, but I was concerned to discover whether this went further than just the particular individuals with which we were concerned and I think I was conscious in my own mind that the question had to be whether it was journalists to the extent of the editor.”

That was much weaker than the assurance that had previously been given to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Leveson suggests that David Perry might have said that in July 2009 because he was advising in a rush overnight, but the fact is that the DPP showed—or it was shown on the DPP’s behalf—and that his draft letter to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee was put before David Perry on 30 July, and he again confirmed that the narrow interpretation had been made. That letter was then supplied to the CMS Committee and used again to inform the DPP’s commitment to the Home Affairs Committee in October 2010. So that was then a question of misleading Parliament. On 3 November, junior counsel repeated that same basis when looking at the DPP’s letter and going to reconfirm this to the Committee once more.

Given all these issues, Clarke in charge of this said that the uncertainty of the legal advice limited the investigation, and that we have to give credit.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Debate between Mark Reckless and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I do not entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. However, if the Government want to take the country with them as they are taking through enormous cuts, it is important that they have a process in Parliament that people can understand. We simply do not have that, which is one reason why people are so angry about some of the cuts that are happening.

[Mark Reckless]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on what he says and associate myself fully with his remarks. May I ask whether the Opposition Front-Bench team would support amendments to Standing Orders to put our tax and spend process on the proper basis that he describes?

[Chris Bryant]

That is way above my pay grade. I am just speaking for myself in this regard, and I hope that hon. Members will take my comments in that sense, but I have made this argument for a very long time and tried to do the same when I was Deputy Leader of the House.

I just say to the hon. Member for South West Norfolk that my constituents do not particularly want very high rates of tax, either for themselves or for wealthy people. There is no sense of bitterness and a determination to grind the wealthy down among my constituents, many of whom have very noble aspirations to be wealthy themselves. They hope one day to be paying higher rates of tax, so the point for them today is not about whether a 50p rate of tax is ever the right thing; it is about whether that is the right thing now. I say to her that my constituents feel that the past few years have been very tough, not just the Conservative years, but the last two years of the Labour Government, because of the global financial crisis. People such as my constituents have suffered the most in that time and they do not see people in the City of London suffering—the sales of champagne have still been pretty good—but they do feel themselves suffering. In that situation, it is all the more incumbent on us to think very hard before lessening the tax rate for the wealthiest.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Mark Reckless and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I will not, because the hon. Gentleman voted for the programme motion. There is a short time left and we ought to hear from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), who should be the only hon. Member for the Isle of Wight.

The argument that has been adduced in favour of the Isle of Wight should surely apply to Anglesey, too. There is no argument against that—except for the fact that it is represented by a Labour Member, and happens to be in Wales.

There is an additional problem with the Government amendments. Because they are trying to force two parliamentary seats on the Isle of Wight—I suspect that that does not reflect the view of the people of the Isle of Wight; they think that it should be separate from Hampshire, but they have not argued for two seats—it will be difficult to draw the boundary. We are more likely to end up with one constituency of 60,000 or 65,000 and one of 30,000 or 35,000 than an exact divide.

[Mark Reckless]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

No, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, too, voted for the programme motion, so I shall not give way.

Someone of cynical mind could look at the list of parliamentary constituencies for which exceptions are being made and draw conclusions: one, by virtue of 13,000 sq km, to the Liberal Democrats; one, for Orkney and Shetland, to the Liberal Democrats, one, for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, to the nationalists—at the moment, but I hope for not much longer—and two for the Isle of Wight. Some have suggested that that means two Tory seats in the Isle of Wight. It may be one Tory and one Liberal Democrat: perhaps that is the rescue seat for the Deputy Prime Minister come the next general election.

European Union Bill

Debate between Mark Reckless and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The Bill does make reference to treaty change, and understandably so. I thought that the whole argument that the hon. Gentleman and many others have made over the past three or four years during discussion of the Lisbon treaty and its predecessor was that because a treaty change was involved, there should be a referendum. All I am saying is that if that had been the proposition in France, we would never see an end to that element of treaty change. I would, however, be amazed if the Government make any progress on trying to change the Strasbourg provisions, although perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us on that.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions that the dual site of the European Parliament is provided for in the treaties. Surely the key issue is that the coalition agreement says that we are going to deal with this situation. The opportunity to do so is coming up, because the eurozone needs our agreement to a new treaty. In return for our agreement, surely we could demand that the European Parliament move to a single site, thus fulfilling what is in the coalition agreement.

[Chris Bryant]

That little speech was the definition of “denial”, because there is no prospect of the French volunteering a treaty change on the Strasbourg sittings unless an enormous contribution is to be made from our side, which the Government would be able to deliver only if they were holding a referendum. By forcing referendums here, which means that the Government cannot give anything away, the Bill is making it impossible to win the argument on closing down Strasbourg—I mean the sittings there, not the city.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Absolutely. There are many different things in the European Union—many determined in treaty—that I want to change as a pro-European and as somebody who wants always to defend the British interest. I do not see those two things running counter to each other. My argument in essence is that the Government must have enough freedom to proceed in negotiations, so that they can gain concessions from the other side. If a country has already locked itself down, it is impossible to gain concessions from the other side.

[Mark Reckless]

rose—

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, then to my hon. Friend, and then please release me.

[Mark Reckless]

I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman has not entirely seen my point. A referendum is only one lever that the UK can use to extract concessions. Our agreement is needed on the new treaty for the eurozone, which is desperately needed to try to put in place a permanent bail-out mechanism. My suggestion and, as I understand it, the commitment in the coalition agreement is that as a coalition we will ensure that the Parliaments move to one site and work to limit the application of the working time directive in the UK. Surely that new treaty gives us an opportunity to do so.

[Chris Bryant]

No, because one requires treaty change and the other does not. If we have already locked ourselves down by saying that any element of change would have to be submitted to a referendum, when we effectively know that most referendums on many of these issues would be lost in the UK—that is the whole tenor of the argument made by the hon. Gentleman and others on the Government Benches—it will be impossible for us to negotiate with a free hand. In the end, that will be bad for the British interest.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Mark Reckless and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The Deputy Leader of the House has made a fair point. However, because we are now putting in statute significant elements of the way in which the British constitution might work in the future, rather than, of necessity, what exists at present, we are creating a labyrinth which Prime Ministers may well wish to navigate. I shall say more about that shortly, once I have given way to the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who is talking to a Whip at the moment.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mark Reckless]

That is very kind.

I believe that there is a recent precedent in Canada, whose Parliament—if I understand the position correctly—was prorogued for two or three months by a minority Government, against the wishes of many parliamentary parties.